On Dec. 5, Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs, and Leesa McBroom, chair of faculty council and professor and chair of nursing, met with Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor to brief students on faculty council’s executive summary of the report on claims made by students and faculty of the Slavery, Memory Justice Project (SMJP) that the William Jewell College administration had undermined students’ and faculty’s academic freedom.  Armstrong also provided a copy of faculty council’s recommendations for strengthening academic freedom at William Jewell College, as stated in the executive summary of its report.

The SMJP is a group of students, alumni and faculty which has conducted extensive research since Aug. 2020 on the history of slavery’s influence on the College. The SMJP claimed that their ability to present their scholarship to the Jewell community was undermined by interference from the administration. The SMJP also claimed that the College showed preferential treatment in terms of access to archival materials to its own investigative council: the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC); the RRC had unlimited access to materials that the SMJP had limited access to. The RRC was established in April 2021 by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College. Its purpose is to “[find] and [express] both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College spanning the years of our founding until today.”

After providing a copy of the recommendations, Armstrong addressed questions from members of Student Senate and The Hilltop Monitor pertaining to the recommendations. Armstrong also discussed some of the historical background that led to the resolution to investigate claims of academic freedom violations. 

Secondly, Amstrong also stated that, apart from faculty council’s recommendations, students would not receive any other aspects of faculty council’s executive summary on the report of academic freedom. Armstrong’s explanation for this decision centered on confidentiality, personnel privacy, and the importance of second chances for parties interviewed in the investigative process.

Thirdly, Armstrong responded to claims made in a letter written by Christopher Wilkins, associate professor of history and faculty advisor for the SMJP, concerning the lack of findings on violations of student academic freedom within the report. Afterwards, McBroom explained why faculty council chose to make findings on particular student issues, and not others.

The meeting will be discussed through these three sections. Readers may follow along on the full transcript of the meeting, which can be found here. The transcript, like the article, is divided into sections for ease of access.

The members of the Student Senate meeting generally have a good understanding of the history of the controversy. As a result, the questions asked by students present and Armstrong’s and McBroom’s responses assume a certain degree of knowledge about the matter at hand. Since it is not the case that these facts have been presented in a comprehensive manner to the student body, the article will first give a history of the events leading up to the resolution prompting faculty council’s investigation and the actors involved. Clarification of necessary historical background will take place in the first section of this article; the next three sections will deal with the proceeding of the meeting as previously articulated. In total, this article will have four sections.

I. The events leading up to faculty council’s resolution

On Apr. 4, 2022, Wilkins presented a lecture to Jewell faculty in which he expressed reservations about the RRC’s report and discussed violations of the SMJP’s academic freedom. This report – which was released in January of 2022 – provided the RRC’s “initial research regarding the slaveholding of the College’s founders and the influence of those founders on the early decades of the College.” The report was compiled by the RRC’s lead researcher, Andrew Pratt, dean emeritus of the chapel, using resources from the William Jewell College Archives and Partee Center, the Missouri State Archives, and research conducted by other members of the RRC and research done by Hayley Michael for the SMJP. Michael – now a Jewell history and political science alumna –  is a member of the SMJP and a former member of the RRC between Apr. and Feb. of 2022. Michael resigned from the RRC because of her reservations regarding the findings of the RRC’s report.

In his lecture, Wilkins praised the work of SMJP students, who had gathered more than 5,000 historical sources illuminating slavery’s influence on Jewell’s history. Wilkins also criticized the approach that the RRC had taken in studying connections between slavery and Jewell’s history, including its failure to to focus on the lived experience of enslaved people and the administration’s lack of engagement with SMJP students’ work.

On Apr. 22, 2022, in another lecture, Wilkins elaborated on the claims he made to faculty on Apr. 4. Wilkins claimed the following:

First, the administration inaccurately implied that the research done by Jewell students, alumni, and Wilkins on the College’s pro-slavery past was done in collaboration with the RRC and administration. In the College’s initial public relations statement regarding the RRC, Wilkins was listed as a special advisor to the group and his name was used without permission in the College’s announcement video for the RRC. In fact, Wilkins had declined to be a part of the RRC. 

Second, Wilkins elaborated on his earlier point on Apr. 4 concerning the lack of adequate engagement with student voices and student research in the RRC’s report. The RRC’s report makes no mention of research completed by SMJP students as members of the SMJP. The RRC report cites research compiled by Michael, but does not indicate that this research was done as part of the SMJP project, long before the RRC’s report was compiled. Furthermore, the RRC’s report did not cite research completed by the student archivist during the summer of 2021 on census data hosted on the Missouri State Archives website.

Though Wilkins did not directly mention this in his lecture at the Colloquium, he invited the audience to ask SMJP student researchers about their experiences serving on the RRC. Specifically, he indicated that the way in which the RRC repeatedly undermined student voices was enumerated in Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. The content of this letter would later serve as some of the basis for Wilkins’ claims that culminated in the resolution petitioning faculty council to investigate concerns about academic freedom violations. Because this was discussed in the Student Senate meeting, a fuller account of this letter will be given in the relevant section of this article. 

Third, Wilkins drew attention to an e-mail sent by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College, on Aug. 30, 2021; Wilkins discussed this e-mail on Apr. 22 of 2022 during the Duke Undergraduate Colloquium. This e-mail was sent to all faculty and staff – but not students – after the Kansas City Star published an article focusing on the SMJP students’ research. The e-mail stated that “until we are clear on what is true regarding Jewell’s founding, we cannot make decisions on how we should live, or move forward,  as a twenty-first century institution of higher learning. Perhaps more importantly, it is the sole responsibility of the [Racial Reconciliation] Commission to determine what is true [about the college’s founding]…”

The e-mail made no mention of the SMJP or of their contributions to researching the history of the College and its ties to slavery. Wilkins claimed that MacLeod Walls’ e-mail, in asserting that the RRC had the sole responsibility to determine what is true about the founding of the College, amounted to the claim that “only the college administration has the authority to say what is true about its history” – not the students, nor any alumni or faculty associated with the SMJP. 

Fourthly, Wilkins claimed that repeated efforts, dating back to Sept. of 2020, to make contact with the administration and the lead researcher of the RRC in order “to try to get them to empower the students and listen to the students and me when we explain what national best practices would require to study Jewell’s pro-slavery past well” amounted to nothing.

For example, SMJP students suggested dedicating a room in Jewell Hall to the history of the College and its ties to slavery – this idea was rejected by the College on the basis that it did not constitute an “organic” move towards change. Further, Wilkins’ petition to have a faculty forum for the purposes of educating faculty on the history of slavery at the College was denied on the grounds that this move would be “discourteous to the administration.” It was Pharamond Guice, then chair of the staff council, who invited Wilkins to speak to staff on these issues.

Finally, Wilkins also claimed that students were barred from access to key resources found in the William Jewell College Archives at a time when Pratt had 24/7 access to the archives, given that he had a key to the archives. In other words, the College showed preferential treatment to its own investigative commission in terms of access to key archival resources. 

In May of 2022, on the basis of claims made by Wilkins and SMJP students, a resolution was unanimously approved by the Jewell faculty tasking faculty council to ‘investigate and report on claims that academic freedom has been threatened or undermined at Jewell.’ That investigation began in June and concluded last month. Its findings, to the extent that students have been able to learn about them, were the subject of the Student Senate meeting, and will be brought up in the relevant section.

II. The executive summary of  faculty council’s report on the question of academic freedom: A brief history and recommendations 

With these historical preliminaries aside, the article will discuss the Student Senate meeting. Readers following along on the transcript should note that this section corresponds to section 1 of the transcript.

Armstrong stated that “faculty voted on a resolution which [he] had offered… to ask faculty council to investigate the claims about whether academic freedom had been threatened or undermined.”

Once the resolution had been adopted, faculty council began a “long investigative process” which McBroom took part in. McBroom, along with other faculty, was “elected by the faculty and entrusted by the faculty” to undertake this investigative process.

After collecting evidence by interviewing relevant individuals, asking questions of the College archives and reviewing the Faculty Handbook and the Student Handbook, faculty council compiled their findings in a report. The full report was issued to administrative Cabinet members, faculty council, the Board of Trustees, the associate dean of the core curriculum and academic department chairs. An executive summary of this report was issued to all faculty. However, no faculty members other than department chairs will be allowed to see the full report. 

According to Armstrong, “faculty council had three principal findings. First, while academic freedom had not been threatened… it had been undermined. Secondly, although there have been claims that professor Wilkins and [SMJP] students had been denied fair access to the college archives, [faculty council] found those claims were not persuasive. They didn’t rise to the level of being an academic freedom violation.” Thirdly, “[faculty council] also found that although there had been claims that students had been denied their right to present their findings or research – to have a voice – they found that those were not persuasive either.” 

Armstrong presented students with faculty council’s 25 recommendations. The document containing these recommendations can be accessed here. The Hilltop Monitor has also transcribed the recommendations. They are as follows:

Policy Changes 

1. Academic Freedom Policy
   • Examine handbook language to ensure consistency and adequate protection of academic freedom. 
   • Specifically address academic freedom issues around intramural speech and protect the right to criticize college policy and administrative decisions. 
   • Require annual training for the Board of Trustees (BOT), Administration and Faculty on Academic Freedom.
   • Review the student academic freedom policy.
   • Appoint an academic freedom policy task force to review these recommendations. 
2. Archive Policy 
   • The policy on access and storage of old trustee minutes should be written.
   • Commit to preserving the archives, following best practices, improving the environment/storage, and providing the resources to do so. 
   • Policy on archive access should be codified. 
   • Clarify role of retirees, key return, building access, and oversight of and input on policy. 
3. Write a policy for the Faculty Handbook or Policy Library about media inquiries and faculty.

Racial Reconciliation Commission 

1. Continue the scholarly work of uncovering the history of the College’s earliest decades, but with a renewed energy of cooperation among all competing narratives. 
2. Acknowledge that the previous histories left out the truth. 
3. Tell the history unimpeded by spinning a more “acceptable” story.
4. Inform the College community of the RRC’s mandate, goals, and alignment with strategic plan. 
5. Share recommendations, engage the community, and share next steps. 
6. Adopt a transparent process by providing regular communication on outcomes and shortening the timeline on action items. 
7. Remove the announcement video and webpage information that implies Dr. Wilkins is a member of RRC.

Shared Governance 

1. Issue a statement of support from Administration and BOT defending faculty rights to full academic freedom and commitment to shared governance. 
2. Specify that the VPAA leads in the defense of academic freedom for the faculty. 
3. Appoint two faculty to the full BOT for a two-year term and a maximum of two consecutive terms for consistent faculty representation concurrent with the Faculty Council subcommittee appointments. 
4. Improve consistent membership of Faculty Council members on subcommittees. 
5. Appoint a faculty cabinet from the chairs of the big four committee (or their designee) to provide an avenue to improve communication, trust, and shared governance. 
6. The VPAA should vet any changes to the Faculty Handbook after first consulting with Faculty Council.
7. Faculty Council should conduct a regular evaluation of the President and VPAA, reporting the results to the faculty. 

Culture and Communication

1. Foster a culture of trust and openness. 
2. Acknowledge the culture of fear and take steps to acknowledge and adopt meaningful change to eliminate or mitigate fear. 
3. Seek to listen to diverse viewpoints and find compromise instead of attempting to control. 
4. Set collaboration as a priority at all levels, and include all relevant audiences. 
5. When intentions or goals are not clear, gather all pertinent members face-to-face to discuss goals, priorities, and intentions to avoid miscommunication. 
6. Allow multiple voices into formal communication efforts to incorporate diverse perspectives and check tone and alignment. 
7. Check communication efforts to make sure they are forward-looking and not simply reactionary. 
8. Develop a culture taskforce (made up of administration, faculty, and staff) to assess current cultural norms and find effective ways forward to mitigate some of the cultural characteristics and miscommunication that led to this situation.
   

Armstrong stated that the administration is committed to enacting faculty council’s recommendations. This commitment was expressed in a joint e-mail from MacLeod Walls and Armstrong to the faculty on Nov. 19, the day after faculty council’s executive summary of the report was released to all faculty. 

Armstrong noted that the timeline in terms of the adoption of these recommendations is difficult to pin down. Some of the recommendations, such as the recommendation to review the Faculty Handbook, require the approval of the Board of Trustees. Further, proposing major changes to the Student Handbook with respect to academic freedom requires that the Board be informed such that they can make comments and questions.

III: On the confidentiality of the executive summary of faculty council’s report

Armstrong then gave an account of why the executive summary of faculty council’s report is confidential. Interested readers will want to refer to section two of the transcript. 

Armstrong stated that it is the College’s policy to “maintain confidentiality about investigative processes which can involve alleged misconduct.” To illustrate this, Armstrong gave three examples. 

1. “Professor McBroom and I know faculty that have been fired because they have sex with students. We don’t know that officially because unless you’re directly involved with the case, we never say that publicly. That’s in part to guard the rightful privacy of the student who is involved, but that is also – in cases where everyone is confident that there is not serial abuse – you give the faculty a chance to get another job. So it’s in part about privacy, second chances.”

2. “I served on the Greek judicial council. Now, the Greek judicial council does not deal with individual Greeks; it deals with sanctions on Greek organizations as a whole. Some of them have gotten into enormous trouble and faced serious sanctions imposed by a group who are majority students with some faculty – and I bet you don’t know. Well, why don’t we tell you? It’s in part we’re saying to those organizations, get your act together. And we’re going to give you a chance to recruit good new members to help you keep your act together rather than publicly – but if you don’t get your act together, then that can come out.”

3. “I imagine this year we’re going to have 35 academic honor code violations. I will always think the College should – and we always do – we report to faculty and I hope the Hilltop Monitor will always run an article on the numbers: how many cases, how many were convicted, how many were acquitted, describe the sanctions. But we can’t tell you the individuals and that’s in part because, we’ve always said that part of our educational process –  even in that process – is educational and to give the person another chance. So that’s elements of rightful confidentiality in my view.”

Students were confused about the examples presented. While clearly there was some similarity in terms of confidentiality for the sake of maintaining personnel or student privacy in both the academic freedom investigation and in the three examples, the nature of these examples seemed different than the investigation undertaken by faculty council. As The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter noted, the examples dealt with criminal investigations or investigations into misconduct, whereas the issue at hand was a “determination on student rights to academic freedom.” The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that it was important for students to see the “deliberation that faculty council underwent in order to have an understanding of how… admin and… faculty understand students’ rights.”

In response, Armstrong emphasized that confidentiality was maintained because of personnel privacy. As Armstrong stated that behind some of the evidence “are actual college personnel and officers. And… faculty council made the decision… that the really important thing here is to figure out what happened and what to do about it… not to adjudicate personal accountability and responsibility.” Therefore, “[the College] cannot give an account of the structure of the deliberation beyond what’s in the executive summary… [In the report, faculty council] give a definition of what they mean by threaten and undermine; they gave a list of the people that they interviewed; and some evidence that they looked at… Beyond that, that is cloaked behind confidentiality.”

The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter asked whether the principles that faculty council used in their deliberation about academic freedom could be released. The Hilltop Monitor’s reporter was specifically interested in getting the definition of undermine or threaten as used in the report.

Armstrong responded that “[the student body] will not be given the exact principles [used by faculty council].”

Following up on this line of questioning, Ethan Naber, Student Senate’s commissioner for student involvement, asked why “no steps [like redacting names of personnel where appropriate] can be taken to make information available to students.” 

Armstrong responded that he had already given three examples as to why this would not suffice to safeguard confidentiality. However, he stated that he was “very happy to ask the president” for permission to summarize the arguments he had presented thus far. 

IV. Dr. Wilkins’ allegations in his letter to faculty and administration

Benjamin Wardlow, president of Student Senate, asked Armstrong and McBroom to respond to allegations discussed in a letter Wilkins sent to faculty and administration on Dec. 4, following the release of the executive summary. The Hilltop Monitor obtained a copy of Wilkins’ letter. Interested readers will want to refer to section three and four of the transcript.

The central claim made by Wilkins was that faculty council’s findings – as reported in the executive summary – presented “a flawed, incomplete narrative that effaces students’ central role” in the ongoing controversy concerning academic freedom. Specifically, faculty council failed to make findings on two of three claims that Wilkins made with respect to student academic freedom, and Wilkins argued that its finding on his third claim was flawed.

What were Wilkins’ three claims?

1. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering students’ access to historical sources and giving College officials preferential access to those sources.”

2. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom “by attempting to exert control over the dissemination of students’ research into the College’s relation to slavery.”

3. The administration threatened or undermined student academic freedom by “hindering their ability to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community.”

With respect to the first claim, Armstrong stated that faculty council’s report “concluded that professor Wilkins did have access to the archives but at a different timeline as the result of what was going on inside the archives – it was not a process of deliberate, intentional denial of archive access.”

Furthermore, Armstrong drew a distinction between violations of academic freedom and violations of the spirit of free inquiry. Armstrong argued that barring someone “access to archival materials is not itself an academic freedom issue.” To explain why, Armstrong gave three examples:

1. “If I want the minutes of crucial Chinese leadership meetings over what to do at Shanghai, and they refuse to give it to me, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

2. “If I want what I think are super secret memos in the Vatican about the role of the Pope in World War II, and I want those memos and the Vatican says no, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

3. “If I believe there are really important memos in the George Bush library about torture and I know where they are and they won’t give them, my academic freedom has not been violated.”

Students were confused about the applicability of these examples to the current matter. The Hilltop Monitor reporter noted that the issue at hand was one wherein a faculty member had requested access to archival resources. It was unclear just how petitioning a foreign government could be similar to this case, particularly when the policy of the College archives has generally been that “so long as it’s a member of the Jewell community [petitioning for access to archival resources], [archives staff] have to give reasons for not giving access.” And although the College granted Wilkins and the SMJP students access to archival resources, the SMJP claimed that the RRC’s lead researcher was given “preferential treatment” to archives resources. Specifically, in June 2021, the SMJP had first requested information about Board of Trustee minutes, but never received information from the archives staff regarding them, and only learned of their existence after the publication of the RRC’s slavery report in Jan. of 2022.

In response, Armstrong emphasized that the point of his examples “is that refusing to grant access to information is not itself a violation of academic freedom.” Further, with respect to the claim about preferential treatment of the RRC’s lead researcher, Armstrong stated that “he had different access at a different time, but Professor Wilkins was given the same access.” Armstrong also added that “the second thing that’s important… is that the early Board of Trustees minutes were not in the archives. They were in the executive office.”

A brief discussion on the resources in contention is merited. Apart from a general claim made by SMJP students that they were barred access to the archives for a variety of reasons such as the disorganization of the archives itself and the presence of black mold, there is also a specific claim made with respect to certain key archives resources. These are the mid 19th century minutes of the Board of Trustees and certain early development financial papers. The minutes of the Board of Trustees are not stored in the archives; these are stored in the president’s office. The early development papers are stored in the archives. 

The claims made by Wilkins with respect to the early development papers and the Board of Trustee minutes are as follows:

1. During the summer of 2021, Wilkins petitioned the College archives for access to their resources in order to conduct research concerning the history of the College and its ties to slavery. This petition made it known to archives staff that Wilkins was looking for documents which might aid his research. Given the disorganization of the archives at the time, effective research required that archives staff stay on the lookout for resources that might help the patron, as the patron themself could not reference a comprehensive inventory, nor wander archives circulation, as the archives is closed circulation. That archives staff did not inform Wilkins or the SMJP students about the RRC’s lead researcher finding the Board of Trustee minutes in the President’s Office, then, constitutes preferential treatment of the RRC in terms of access to resources, where access to these resources is crucial for academic freedom insofar as this involves pursuing controversial issues freely. Wilkins and the SMJP students found out about the existence of the Board of Trustee minutes only when the RRC’s report was published. Previously, the Board of Trustee minutes in question had been lost and were found in the President’s Office.

2. In April 2022, when Wilkins requested to see the mid 19th century Board of Trustee minutes kept for safekeeping in the Office of the President, adding that he wished to include SMJP students in these research appointments, he received a response from the administration that, in order to see these minutes, he and his students would have to petition the Board of Trustees directly. Later, this was revised to say that President MacLeod Walls, who is “ultimately responsible” for the minutes, could approve access to the minutes—which she did. In his open letter to faculty, Wilkins pointed out that he had first asked to see the trustee minutes in June 2021, and that between that time and January 2022, when the existence of those sources became public knowledge, only the RRC’s lead researcher had been able to conduct research in the sources.

3. Furthermore, when Wilkins and the SMJP students were granted access to these resources, they were informed that no scans or photographs could be taken of these minutes, nor of the early development financial papers stored in the archives, as both of these contain proprietary and confidential information. Wilkins and his students were invited to take handwritten or typed notes on the documents. However, this again showed that the College had given preferential treatment to the RRC’s lead researcher – Pratt had received scans of almost all the early development papers stored in the archives. These scans were made by the student archivist during the summer of 2021.

4. By unduly obstructing the SMJP’s access to resources, the College’s actions undermined the epistemic authority of the SMJP. While the lead researcher of the RRC had reproductions which he could easily reproduce, the SMJP researchers had to rely on handwritten or typed notes which are subject to mistakes and to further questioning by members of the public. These obstacles in terms of access made it so that the SMJP was in a worse position in terms of doing sustained academic research into the history of the College – these concerns seemed to Wilkins to fall right under the purview of academic freedom violations.

In response, Armstrong reasserted that SMJP students were granted access to resources, just on a different timeline. He also restated his strong belief that a denial of access is not an academic freedom violation.

Armstrong then addressed Wilkins’ second claim by drawing a distinction between controlling and influencing. Armstrong argues that Wilkins’ claims that the administration went astray insofar as they attempted to influence the students, and that this struck him as “different than… control.” “If the president says, ‘We are worried about the timing of… [the] dissemination of findings and building coalitions and support for the unity of change.’ She has just said, ‘We are worried.’ She did not say, ‘You may not do that.’ So she’s trying to influence, but that’s not the same thing as control.”

These comments were in reference to claims that, upon hearing that The Hilltop Monitor planned to release several articles about the SMJP and their research, the administration contacted The Hilltop Monitor to ask that the publication of these articles be delayed. Despite the administration’s attempt to influence the publication time, The Hilltop Monitor published their articles in April and May (the relevant articles can be accessed here, starting with an article published in Apr. 16, 2021). 

Finally, Armstrong addressed Wilkins’ third claim. Armstrong does not believe that the actions of the administration undermined students’ freedom to have their scholarship judged fairly by the College community. For the same reasons he discussed earlier in the meeting: namely, students were able to present their research at various forums and on The Hilltop Monitor. 

However, Wilkins’ claims say a bit more. Wilkins argues that communication on the part of the administration – both to specific students and to the Jewell community – undermined Jewell’s standing as a marketplace of ideas, where competing truths can be discussed and tested. This is because the communication on the part of administration, which has a great degree of authority and influence when it comes to addressing both the Jewell community and the broader Kansas City community, placed the RRC at the center of the investigative enterprise while ignoring or minimizing the SMJP’s ongoing contributions to research into the history of the College. 

There are at least three instances that may support such a claim:

1. The first is one that has already been mentioned; namely, MacLeod Walls’ email in August of 2021 that stated that the RRC had the ‘sole responsibility’ to determine what is true in terms of the history of the College.

2. The second has to do with statements made by the administration with respect to Michael’s letter of resignation from the RRC. As a reminder, Michael was a history and political science major who was a founding member of the SMJP in August 2020; she is now a Jewell alumna. Michael agreed to be a member of the RRC in Apr. of 2021. In Feb. of 2022, she resigned from the RRC for a variety of reasons. One of these is that she did not feel that her concerns as a student researcher were adequately heard during the RRC’s meetings. Michael criticized the RRC’s report for including “various historical inaccuracies about the founders’ ties to slavery,” including exaggerating the anti-slavery actions of William Jewell, founder of the College. When Michael disputed this portrayal of Jewell’s actions using SMJP member Christian Santiago’s research on Jewell, she was told: “No, you’re wrong.”

Michael presented the reasons for her resignation to Rodney Smith, vice president for access and engagement and commission chair. In a letter to the SMJP sent in July 2022, Michael states that in a May 2022 faculty forum, MacLeod Walls implied that “that Dr. Wilkins manipulated me into resigning because he was angry the administration refused his demands. She portrayed me as a weak-willed individual in front of 40+ faculty and the entire college cabinet, completely ignoring that I had resigned for principled moral and intellectual reasons.”

3. Michael claimed that comments by Smith also misrepresented her to the Jewell community.

Armstrong addressed each of these claims. In terms of the first, Armstrong stated that “what [MacLeod Walls] says in that e-mail is that the RRC will have the sole authority to decide what is true and what we are going to do about it.The faculty all heard the first part of the e-mail.” But what MacLeod Walls really meant was “the ‘and’ in the second part.” Further, Armstrong thinks that MacLeod Walls likely regrets that e-mail, given that there is a general understanding on the part of the faculty that “the institutional office of the College does not have a right to decide what is true. [However,] it does have the right to figure out what [the community is] going to do about it.”

Particularly with respect to the third claim, Armstrong stated that “Dr. Smith… would say that… those statements were inartful… [that he] did not mean to indicate the College or the RRC is going to control who receives what of the SMJP’s students’ research.” Armstrong also added that Smith had already clarified his statements in several meetings. 

The Hilltop Monitor reporter asked in what meetings, and to whom, Smith had clarified that his statements were ‘inartful.’ The Hilltop Monitor reporter argued that the issue is that no students had been present in these meetings, which did not ameliorate the “institutional break-down of trust between the admin and the students.”

Armstrong emphasized that The Hilltop Monitor should interview Smith and MacLeod Walls on their statements made with respect to Michael and with respect to the RRC being solely responsible for inquiry into the truth of the history of the College. Armstrong argued that: “It’s time for some interviews, instead of writing more editorials.” Armstrong’s comments are in reference to an editorial arguing that the College should uphold its commitments to student academic freedom, as articulated in the Student Handbook, and disseminate an appropriately redacted version of the executive summary of faculty council’s report.

Wardlow then turned to McBroom. Specifically, Wardlow wanted to understand why faculty council reached a finding on Wilkins’ third claim, and not his first and second claim. In terms of the third claim: faculty council had found that students’ academic freedom was not threatened or undermined insofar as students were able to present at Colloquium and publish articles on the Hilltop Monitor.

McBroom stated that faculty council’s investigative scope was limited to concerns about faculty academic freedom, given its charter. Faculty council did make a finding on Wilkins’ third claim because it pertained to concerns of faculty academic freedom. Faculty council’s claims were also set in relation to Wilkins claims. This also accounts for why faculty council made findings with respect to certain issues, and not others.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Matthew Parker, Student Senate’s commissioner for students’ charter of rights and responsibilities, asked whether there “is…some council or commission whose job it is to address matters of student academic freedom, specifically as regards students rather than as regards faculty.”

McBroom recommended that students “read the student handbook first” to see what “processes or procedures” may be in place. McBroom also recommended that students work with Ernie Stufflebean, dean of students, to “move [things] forward.”  

Armstrong added that he thought it was “totally reasonable for Student Senate to send a letter to the administration” asking for assurances that credible allegations concerning student academic freedom violation would be addressed.  After the meeting with Armstrong and McBroom ended, the cabinet members of Student Senate – along with Stufflebean – discussed gathering evidence from students and alumni affiliated with the SMJP in order to continue the discussion on academic freedom. The Hilltop Monitor will continue to report on the story as it develops, and relevant members of administration will be contacted to give them an opportunity to respond to claims that surfaced in this meeting. 

On May 9, the faculty of William Jewell College voted to adopt a resolution which tasked members of the Faculty Council committee to investigate claims concerning academic freedom violations raised by members of the Slavery, Memory and Justice Project (SMJP). The SMJP is a group of faculty, alumni and 25 students who have conducted extensive research in the history of slavery’s influence on the College since August 2020. 

The SMJP claimed that actions taken by the College undermined students’ and faculty’s academic freedom — understood as the freedom to conduct research and publish findings without the administration’s interference or attempted interference. Further, the SMJP claimed that the College gave preferential treatment in terms of academic freedom to its own investigative council: the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC). The RRC was established in April 2021 by Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College. Its purpose is to “[find] and [express] both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College spanning the years of our founding until today.” 

On Nov. 18, 2022, a general version of the faculty council’s executive summary of the report was released to faculty. The summary reports on whether the academic freedom of the SMJP was jeopardized in this context. On Nov. 19, an e-mail signed by MacLeod Walls, president of the College, and by Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs, was sent to the faculty in response to this executive summary. Further, on Nov. 30, a more specific version of faculty council’s report was released to faculty department chairs and program leaders. The general executive summary, the administration’s response to the summary, and the more specific report will not be released to the student body for reasons of confidentiality and protection of personnel privacy. 

With the purpose of sharing these reports with the broader student body, The Hilltop Monitor reached out to administration for a copy of the executive summary and the subsequent e-mail. The Hilltop Monitor’s request for access to these documents, redacted or otherwise, was denied. Though it is important to safeguard confidentiality and the privacy of College personnel, the administration’s refusal to provide an appropriately redacted version of the report and official communication about the report constitutes a violation of the Student Handbook. The administration commits itself to the protection of academic freedom, but their failure to provide crucial information about an investigation that was at least partly constituted by student rights and interests contravenes the College’s commitments.

According to the handbook, the faculty and the College have a joint responsibility to safeguard student academic freedom: for the “affirmation of academic freedom of students should be accepted as a reciprocal understanding by each individual student and among groups of students and the faculty and administration” (emphasis added). 

The handbook goes on to describe the scope of academic freedom, constructed under this reciprocal understanding amongst students, faculty and administration.

First: students have a right to freedom of expression in the classroom without fear of retaliation from faculty. 

But further, the handbook tasks students with the responsibility of “owning” their curricular experience at Jewell: “While it’s every student’s goal to earn a degree from William Jewell College, Jewell students experience invaluable learning outside the classroom. Students are expected to ‘own’ their co-curricular education which only occurs through immersion in and engaging the Jewell community” (emphasis added).

For students to be able to live up to the responsibility, the College must work “to provide and maintain an academic climate which is conducive to learning.” The executive summary of the report – in addressing student interests and rights with respect to academic freedom – has an impact on the kind of immersion and engagement students have with the Jewell community. Additionally, a determination on student academic freedom, as made in the report, shapes the academic climate that students learn in. 

To support students’ responsibility to “own” their co-curricular education, the College should give students access to the executive summary. The handbook tasks the College with just this responsibility: “Students have the right to the best education possible and the responsibility to be active co-creators in their learning. Students have the right to ready access to academic information, ideas, and material promoting their learning” (emphasis added). 

The handbook also stipulates that: “Students have the right to access to College administration. The College Administration will seek to foster lines of communication with students, consulting student opinion and representation prior to major changes in college policy, especially changes directly affecting students. Students will seek active and responsible participation in such changes. Implementation of such changes shall be publicly announced before going into effect.”

A determination of student academic freedom is just the sort of thing which directly affects students. According to the handbook, the administration has a responsibility to share relevant information about such crucial determinations with the student body, but no official communication about faculty council’s investigation has been shared with the student body.

It is the case that administration often communicates – whether in e-mails, reports, or meetings –  with faculty without the student body’s input. However, in this particular situation, where there is student unrest concerning the matter of academic freedom, continued communication without the inclusion of the student body breaks down institutional trust.

If the concern about releasing the executive summary of the report is a concern about confidentiality, then the report should be appropriately redacted, as per legal counsel’s advice. If the concern about sharing an e-mail response with the student body is about a potential breach in the privacy of personnel, the relevant personnel should be asked whether they think it would be beneficial to share the response with the student body. If the relevant personnel express concerns about their own privacy, then it is legitimate to not broadly disseminate the e-mail response. 

To fulfill their commitments to academic freedom, the College should find a way to mediate confidentiality and privacy concerns and the rights and interests of students. Foreclosing materials to the student body that are relevant to an understanding of the academic environment denigrates the quality of education and undermines trust in the administration. 

On Nov. 10, members of the Racial Reconciliation Commission (RRC) hosted a Town Hall meeting, inviting members of the William Jewell College community “to meet the Commissioners as we provide a detailed update of [the RRC’s] recent activities” and to share their concerns and perspective on the RRC thus far.

The meeting was led by Rodney Smith, chair of the RRC and vice president for access and engagement. Other College staff members were also in attendance, including Elizabeth MacLeod Walls, president of the College; Gary Armstrong, interim vice president of academic affairs; Clark Morris, vice president of advancement and executive director of Harriman-Jewell Series; Angela Bass, executive assistant to the president, and, additionally, some members of the Board of Trustees. 

Commissioners of the RRC – in addition to Smith and Morris – were also present: Vernon Howard, president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City and distinguished Jewell alumnus; and Robert Powers, electronic resources and archives librarian. Powers was announced as the RRC’s newest commissioner at the Town Hall meeting. 

The meeting began by Smith sharing “Principles of Commemoration” under which the RRC operates:





In accordance with these principles, the RRC drafted a “Statement of Atonement” – this statement will be publicly shared on the Jewell website some time in the future.



The statement restipulates the aim of the RRC as expressed in the College’s official page for Diversity and Inclusion: the RRC is tasked with “finding and expressing both an historical and moral truth about the racial history of William Jewell College.” 

To accomplish this end, the RRC “for over a year has investigated the connections between the College, its founders and the institution of slavery.” The RRC concluded that “the connections [between the College, its founders and the institution of slavery] are clear and undisputable.”

After presenting the Principles and Statement, Smith presented actionable goals which the RRC recommended the Jewell community pursue to achieve racial reconciliation. These goals were separated out into four headings: “Addressing Historical Inaccuracy,” “Commemoration,” “Repair and Restoration,” and “Creating a Better Future.”

Addressing Historical Inaccuracy
Under the heading of Addressing Historical Inaccuracy, the statements reads:


Smith clarified that the role of the RRC with respect to providing a history of the College. Though “there was a perception that the commission would write a history of the College,” as Smith explained, the role of the RRC is to commission a report — not to write one. However, Smith stated that a “deeper and more fulsome report” building on the RRC’s initial report of January of 2022 will be released in the future.

Throughout the Town Hall meeting, MacLeod Walls emphasized that the College plans to commission experts to undertake the necessary research required to compile a comprehensive report on the history of the College. This commission is necessary as ”no experts on campus are conducting research in the history of the College,” MacLeod Walls added. 

Further, MacLeod Walls stated that, previously, “we had reached out to Dr. Wilkins, but that didn’t happen,” in reference to the Slavery Memory, and Justice Project (SMJP), a group of 25 students, as well as alumni and faculty – including  Christopher Wilkins, associate professor of history – who have conducted extensive research in the history of slavery’s influence on the College. 

Over the past two and a half years, the SMJP carried out research in the William Jewell College Archives, as well as other historical archives in Clay County, Boone County and Jackson County. SMJP researchers have also worked with archivists from the State Historical Society of Missouri, the Missouri Historical Society, and Kentucky’s State Historical Society. SMJP members have presented their scholarship to the campus community in 2021 and 2022, in a series of Hilltop Monitor articles (see here, here, here, here, and here) and academic conferences. Furthermore, the work of the SMJP has been recognized by the Kansas City Star, the Kansas City Beacon, KCUR, and the Pitch Weekly. On the basis of the scholarly expertise acquired in its research and publications, the SMJP will publish a 100+ page report and present it at this year’s Duke Colloquium. Members of the SMJP were in attendance during the Town Hall meeting. 

After students in the audience voiced confusion about the distinction between researching and commissioning, MacLeod Walls stated that commissioning is something that “has no end in sight” and is concerned with the unfolding of the history of the College and its continuing effects to this day. Research, on the other hand, is “a specific scholarly activity,” MacLeod Walls elaborated – a commission is larger than just research insofar as it tells an unfolding story. 

Howard noted that, to his knowledge, very few institutions are engaging in the kind of work in reconciliation that Jewell is – though Howard also noted that the Kansas City Star had completed similar work. 

Adding to Howard’s statement, Ian Coleman, professor of music and chair of performing arts, noted the importance of taking time to commission work: “We have to get it right… [we must recognize that] not every step forward will be the right one” and that the Jewell community must exercise grace and long-term commitment to “getting it right.” Such an attitude of grace and commitment would manifest itself as “not being defensive when criticisms are offered” and “constantly… doing better after making mistakes,” Coleman added. 

In support, Smith emphasized the importance of taking concrete steps as soon as possible, but maintained that ”we need to deliberate” in an appropriate fashion. Smith further emphasized: “Perfection is not possible. Excellence is.” 

In response to concerns about not moving quickly enough, faculty in attendance suggested potential first steps. Kelli Schutte, professor and chair of the Department of Business and Leadership, indicated that the College could commission art works and begin changing the names of relevant buildings and programs such as the Doniphan Leadership Institute. 

Schutte and Smith both agreed that it was certainly possible to achieve this “low hanging fruit,” with MacLeod Walls adding that it would not be necessary to get approval of the Board of Trustees for each and every change in the College. In fact, MacLeod Walls explained that the Board of Trustees has “been informed on this issue… [it’s just a matter] of taking the show on the road.”

As a further clarification of the RRC’s role with respect to addressing historical inaccuracy, Morris added that “the Commission brings recommendations to the College, the President and the Board of Trustees.” The President and the Board of Trustees ultimately make the decisions based on these initiatives, though, as MacLeod Walls explained, not all decisions require Board approval. Morris also concurred that the “recommendations of the Commission have already been brought to the Board.”

In a separate email after the town hall, Smith offered further clarification on the extent of the Board of Trustee’s involvement in the recommendations presented by the RRC. The board is completely aware of the recommendations that were presented [during] last week[‘s Town Hall meeting],” Smith stated. “As you know, some of the recommendations are low-hanging fruit and will not need Board approval, but as you’ve stated, some are more impactful and will need Board approval. With that said, the board has not ‘signed off’ on the Jewell Hall recommendation yet; they requested more time to deliberate. And yes, the Board is quite familiar with the Commission and the Commission’s recommendation regarding Jewell’s official history. In fact, one of the Trustees serves on the Commission.” 

Smith’s statement regarding ‘the Jewell Hall recommendation’ is in reference to one of the actionable goals under the heading of “Commemoration.” 

Commemoration 

Under the heading of “Commemoration,” the statement reads:

Smith used the suggestion of changing the name of the “Alexander Doniphan Leadership Award” as an example of names that continue to do harm. The award is named after Alexander Doniphan, a 19th century Missourian attorney, politician and soldier who played a crucial role in founding the College. Investigation by the SMJP uncovered Doniphan’s pro-slavery stance and ties. The SMJP’s findings were made public in an article published through The Hilltop Monitor in April 2021. It is in light of the public dissemination of the SMJP’s research that the RRC recommends that the College endorse Student Senate’s action to rename the award to the “William G. Summers Award.”

The recommendation that Jewell Hall be renamed caused much discussion, as the suggestion does not stipulate what Jewell Hall’s new name should be. Smith indicated that the RRC intentionally has not suggested a name thus far because they feel that the topic should be discussed with the broader campus community. As Smith later clarified in the aforementioned post-meeting email, renaming Jewell Hall was one of the recommendations that the Board of Trustees had not yet signed off on, citing that additional time was needed to deliberate. 

One way of fulfilling the RRC’s recommendation would be to rename Jewell Hall after a particular slave who was involved in building it; however this consideration prompted a student in the audience to ask whether the RRC knew the names of the enslaved persons. Smith responded that such facts were not yet known, but said that it was possible that research conducted by the SMJP could shed light on this question.

Students also raised the issue of whether the name of the College itself was something that the RRC recommended the Board review. In the RRC’s initial report, William Jewell –  who was responsible for the $10,000 endowment that started the College – was found to have owned slaves. Smith responded that this was just a consideration which he wanted the Jewell community – especially students – to engage with.

Difficulties in changing the College’s name were raised by Bass in particular. Though she emphasized that she was not claiming to be “one way or the other” in terms of a name change, she asserted that “changing the name of the College, at this point, would be extremely detrimental to the institution.” However, Smith added that in some respects “the Jewell community is already changing the name of the College” by the kinds of commitments that are undertaken by the institution – the RRC being one of these. Smith said that he supported recommendations to change the name of the College to simply “Jewell” or “Jewell: The Critical Thinking College.” 

Over the course of the conversation, Howard noted that “name changes are, of course, not the only solutions” available to the College. He elaborated that it is also possible to commit to a long-term engagement of “increasing the number of black faculty, making changes to the budget and creating scholarship opportunities that facilitate an entrenched African American presence at Jewell.” Howard emphasized that this undertaking is “an evolving process.”

Repair and Restoration 

Under the heading of Repair and Restoration, the statement reads:

Creating a Better Future
Under the heading of Creating a Better Future, the statement reads:

The recommendations under the headings of “Repair and Restoration” and “Building a Better Future” concur with Howard’s statements recognizing the many opportunities available for achieving racial justice. Building on Howard’s comment, Smith emphasized that he personally hosts Radical Inclusivity workshops. Further, he noted that this year’s incoming first-year class, by composition, was approximately 38% Black or otherwise constituted by people of color. 

To confirm this statistic, Eric Blair, vice president of marketing, enrollment and student life, was contacted independently via email. According to Blair, “38% diverse was the number [the College] reported in August at the start of term. The official percentage fell to 35% diverse at census date in late September. Census date is the date we capture student data for reporting to the federal government and other agencies for compliance and reporting mandates.” Blair shared the following accompanying graph illustrating the “Percentage of cohort by race/ethnicity, Fall 2022 new student cohort.” 

At the institutional level, the Jewell community engages with the Intercultural Development Inventory (IDI) Survey, a 50-question survey that Smith described as a kind of Myers-Brigg of cultural difference. More information on the IDI survey generally can be found as reported by The Hilltop Monitor. 

Smith also emphasized that “we are working to inform search committees on their implicit biases” and that work is being done to “[qualify] the applicant pool to ensure some candidates of color will be considered.”

The entirety of the meeting was punctuated by an insistence on the importance of including student voices in the work of unfolding the College’s historical narrative with respect to the institution of slavery. In keeping with this theme, professor of history and chair of the department Daniel Kotzin – apart from emphasizing the importance of institutional partnerships for the purposes of expert research – indicated that a “student-led commission” investigating the history of the College could be a crucial component moving forward.

Towards the end of the Town Hall meeting, Ian Wooldridge, the records and finance officer of Student Senate, asked: “What amount of the research may have already been done by the Slavery, Memory and Justice project and the students and faculty that are a part of that, and will the RRC recognize the work of the SMJP when it is released?” 

Smith responded: “Absolutely… we welcome the scholarship of the SMJP project and we look forward to when  [the report is] published. Absolutely, and we’ll cite, reference and want their expertise [and] their voice to be a part of this work.” 

Given the town hall’s repeated emphasis on including the voices of members of the Jewell community, The Hilltop Monitor invites any and all interested parties to provide comments, questions and concerns responding to the RRC’s Town Hall meeting and the unfolding narrative on the history of slavery in relation to the College. We especially encourage students to contribute their perspectives. Comments will be compiled and presented in a future article, though we also invite members of the Jewell community to write independent, long-form letters to our editors. To contribute, please e-mail us at monitor@william.jewell.edu. 

Images of RRC PowerPoint slides courtesy of Rodney Smith, who provided a copy of his presentation to the Hilltop Monitor. Image of incoming freshman year demographics provided by Eric Blair.

Since August of 2020, a group of dedicated student researchers, under the guidance of Dr. Christopher Wilkins, associate professor and chair of the department of history at William Jewell College, has been researching the history of slavery in relationship to Jewell. The research group that the students and Wilkins created, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SJMP), had its origins in an introductory history seminar last fall. This semester, Project members mainly convene during the HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice course that Wilkins teaches. They plan to conduct research for as long as it takes to bring the truth about the College’s relationship with slavery to light. This will ultimately conclude with the group publishing their research – writing a more accurate account of Jewell’s history in the hopes of creating a more inclusive college community. 

As the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project compiles and verifies their research, The Hilltop Monitor will publish their findings. This is the final installment in a series of investigations into the history of slavery at William Jewell College. 

Over the past month, The Hilltop Monitor has detailed the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project’s investigation into the founders and early trustees’ ties to slavery more broadly, and introduced their research on Dr. Jewell and Alexander Doniphan. In this final installment of the investigation, the Monitor reviews the society these figures were embedded in and where the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project endeavors to go next. 

Alexander Doniphan, James T.V. Thompson and other founders and trustees from Clay County were rooted in the society of early Liberty and Clay County. To gain a more comprehensive picture of Jewell’s founding, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project continues to investigate Liberty and Clay County’s historical ties to slavery.

Over the course of this research, the SMJP began assembling evidence that reveals the terrible irony in the name of Liberty. Despite a name proclaiming freedom, both Liberty and Clay County broadly supported slavery and economically depended upon it. 

Founded in the 1820s, most of Clay County’s early white settlers originated from the slave states of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. When they traveled westward, they brought the enslaved people they owned with them. According to census records, 10,337 people lived in Clay County by 1850. Roughly 27% of this total population, or 2,742 people, was enslaved. 

Although Missouri was a slave state, Clay County was far above the norm for Missouri in its embrace of slavery. Overall 13% of Missouri’s population was enslaved in 1850 – or 87,442 enslaved people out of a total population of 682,044. Clay County more than doubled the percentage of the enslaved compared to that of the state as a whole. 

Out of 100 total Missouri counties in 1850, only four other counties had a higher percentage of enslaved people relative to the total population than Clay County.

According to the Project, critical to understanding the role of slave labor in Clay County is acknowledging the differences between how the slave system worked in the Deep South relative to Missouri. Geography and climate made the large-scale plantations of the Deep South ill-suited for Missouri. Slavery in Missouri tended to be more diversified and smaller in scale. 

Few Missouri slave owners owned more than twenty enslaved people. For many slaveholding farmers with smaller operations, the slaveholders worked in the fields alongside the people they enslaved. Sometimes these slaveholders supplemented their income by renting out enslaved people to perform domestic labor and construction. 

However, as scholars of slavery note, a difference in the organizational structure of slavery does not mean it was any less central to the economic system of Missouri and Clay County. By the end of the 1850s, Missouri was one of the largest hemp-producing states in the nation, and Clay County was among the foremost hemp-producing counties in the state. Since the cultivation of hemp demanded backbreaking labor, slaveholders almost always assigned this task to enslaved people.  

The wealth the citizens of Clay County received from this forced labor would be pivotal to their ability to persuade the Baptists to locate their college in Liberty, as recounted in the first installment in this series. 

As part of its research, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project interrogated one of the common justifications used to excuse slaveholders – that they were products of their time and did not have significant access to opposing viewpoints. 

The researchers on the SMJP uncovered evidence to the contrary of this argument. 

At the state level, hostility by a large majority of white Missourians towards abolitionist arguments clearly illustrated their awareness of these arguments. The General Assembly approved an act in 1837 that prohibited the promulgation of abolitionist doctrines. Violators of the law faced two years in state prison and a potential maximum $1,000 fine. Repeat offenders faced sharply escalating sentences: 20 years in prison for a second offense, and a life sentence for a third offense. One of western Missouri’s most prominent citizens, Clay County’s Alexander Doniphan, advocated publicly for the bill’s passage.

Though no prominent Missouri politician supported the immediate abolition of slavery during the Antebellum period, not all were favorably disposed towards the institution on moral grounds. In the early 1850s, the legendary Senator Thomas Hart Benton – one of Missouri’s most powerful politicians for three decades – criticized slavery. Although he was himself a slaveholder, Benton castigated slavery as an incurable evil. 

Given Benton’s prominence, his moral condemnation received wide coverage across the state. Benton’s public opposition stands in contrast to Dr. Jewell, who is similarly often portrayed as a slaveholder with antislavery sentiments. However, there is no evidence that Jewell ever publicly spoke out against slavery. 

In Clay County, two revealing incidents from the 1840s and 1850s demonstrate that citizens had exposure to alternative views. 

According to T.J. Stiles’s Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War, in the 1840s, two evangelists identified only by their last names Chandler and Love dared to criticize slaveholders in Liberty. Jane Gill, the sister of early Jewell trustee Waltus Watkins,  described Clay Countians as sufficiently “enraged” against this anti-slavery preaching that they “threatened” Love “so that he could not preach there.” Swiftly after this threat, Chandler and Love “fled to a northern state.” 

Clay Countians’ feelings towards abolitionism hardened as the decade progressed. At a public meeting in Liberty concerning the Compromise of 1850, prominent figures and Jewell founders – including Doniphan, James T.V. Thompson and E.M. Samuel – all angrily denounced abolitionists. 

Finally, if there could be any doubt about Clay County’s awareness of abolitionist arguments and pro-slavery tilt, the conflict that became known as Bleeding Kansas silences it.

In 1854, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act determined that the slaveholding status of Kansas would be decided by popular sovereignty, Clay County slaveholders became concerned that a free Kansas would be a disaster for their economic interests and inspire the people they enslaved to attempt more frequent escapes. To prevent that outcome, Clay Countians played a significant role in broader Missourian efforts to ensure Kansas would enter the Union as a slave state. 

Clay Countians, led in part by Doniphan, organized a Pro-Slavery Aid Association dedicated to this outcome. Clay Countians formed part of the wave of Missourians who flooded across the border during voting for the territorial legislature, committing egregious voter fraud in the process. 

At times, the Clay Countians went beyond aid and voter fraud into violence. In December 1855, 100 pro-slavery men from Clay County seized weapons – including a cannon – from the Federal arsenal in Liberty, helped equip a large pro-slavery military force with those weapons and then rode into Kansas to besiege the free-state stronghold of Lawrence. This ‘Wakarusa War’ ended in a negotiated peace arranged by the territorial governor, and Clay Countians returned home, having contributed to efforts to make Kansas a slave state. 

If their actions left any ambiguity regarding the dominant view of white Clay Countians towards slavery, the citizens explicitly articulated their opinion in 1855. Following a mob attack on the Industrial Luminary, an anti-slavery newspaper, by citizens of neighboring Platte County, Clay Countians met to endorse the mob’s actions. At this meeting, an endorsed resolution went so far as to call those holding anti-slavery views traitors that needed to be punished. 

This initial research gathered by the SMJP paints a more complicated narrative regarding the citizens of Clay County than is often presented. It also reveals that William Jewell College was constituted in an environment characterized by staunchly pro-slavery sentiments, even beyond the founders and early trustees. 

For Wilkins and the student researchers of the SMJP, there remains considerably more research to uncover and assemble on the founders and early trustees, faculty and students, and Liberty and Clay County. The parts covered in this investigation only begin to scratch the surface of their ambitions. 

And they don’t plan to stop anytime soon. 

Over the past academic year, the SMJP researchers have invested time into learning best practices from how other colleges and universities have explored their historical ties to slavery. 

One of the best resources established for collaborative knowledge-and-technique sharing is the Universities Studying Slavery consortium established as part of the University of Virginia’s investigation into its historical ties to slavery. Over 70 colleges and universities have joined the consortium. Currently, William Jewell College is not one of them. 

This summer, Wilkins will guide more than a dozen student interns as they contribute to this research by fanning out throughout Missouri to visit county historical societies and archives, as well as continue online research. Several alumni with backgrounds in historical research have also volunteered to join the Project’s work.

Wilkins will continue this research over the next several years, including while on sabbatical this fall. He also plans to offer his HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice class every spring semester.  

One of the original student researchers, junior political science and history major Hayley Michael, will continue this research through her honors project. Michael will be focusing on Jewell students, faculty and staff between the Antebellum and Reconstruction periods and their ties to slavery. She will defend her honors project in the spring of 2022. 

“In my decade at Jewell, I have never worked with a more dedicated, passionate, idealistic, and impressive group of students,” said Wilkins. 

Wilkins emphasized that the crucial importance of students trained in rigorous historical inquiry is the animating force in this research and generating positive cultural change at Jewell. 

“Since last August, I have focused on helping to create and guide the independent Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project, and recently declined to serve on the administration-created Racial Reconciliation Commission, for two reasons,” said Wilkins. “The first is how the nature of who is doing the work influences whose voices are being heard on how to address this history. The SMJP is student-centered, community-based, and advised by faculty specializing in historical research.  We have done a tremendous amount of work over the past academic year, will collectively decide on when we believe our research is ready to be published and how it should be presented, and work together to advocate for policies that we believe in.”

Wilkins continued to speak on the timeline of the research.

“The second is the timeline of the SMJP’s work: to truly recover the history of slavery’s influence on Jewell will take time, and I expect the research and writing of the 100+ page report on slavery and Jewell will take until mid-2023,” said Wilkins. “That amount of time will be necessary to identify the names of as many of the enslaved people held in bondage by the founders and early trustees as possible, describe the conditions of those enslaved peoples’ lives and investigate the actions of the Jewell community during the Civil War era.”

Wilkins closed the interview by expressing his belief that there is a moral imperative to use our knowledge of slavery’s influence on Jewell’s history to help build a more inclusive college community in the future – a belief that serves as the foundation for all the work done by the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project.