On Sunday, October 23, Haverford College’s Annual Fall Plenary took place in the Gardener Integrated Athletic Center. Some students spread out picnic blankets on the gym floor and settled in for the four hour event, others elected to follow along online with the Zoom option.
This semester, five new resolutions were put up to a vote, along with the plenary Rules of Order and Alcohol Policy. The Rules of Order were ratified with a two-thirds majority vote after reaching quorum at 2:25 PM.
Resolution One — CAPS
The first resolution on the table was an Expansion of Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), presented by Active Minds, a Haverford student group dedicated to “expanding mental health awareness and access to mental health intervention services among the Haverford student population.” As per the Fall Plenary Packet circulated before the event, “the aim of this resolution is to grant CAPS more funding so that they can better provide mental health services…Examples of what this looks like include hiring more therapists and psychiatrists, making access to off-campus services more transparent, and having a direct link to a crisis counselor instead of going through campus safety.”
Students have been greatly affected by long waiting lists for counseling services, and inaccessible aspects of CAPS such as medication distribution. Thus, Active Minds posits in this resolution that more funding be guaranteed for CAPS and that it be a priority in budgeting. After the mandatory Q&A and Pro/Con debate, the resolution passed with a 50% majority and no friendly or unfriendly amendments.
Resolution Two — HaverSanctuary
Quorum was briefly lost at 3:36 and regained before the second resolution was introduced. Resolution number two, HaverSanctuary, was presented by Estrella Pacheco and Yehyun Song, ‘25, and sponsored by several Affinity Houses. It was built on “a 2016 Resolution from Former President Kim Benston and the Board of Managers affirming the College’s commitment to protecting students who are non-U.S citizens,” according to the packet. This recapitulation of the 2016 resolution suggests that the college reaffirms its commitment to shielding undocumented students and staff from harmful United States immigration policy. Sections of the resolution call for changes such as the campus being a space that bars all immigration enforcement activity without a warrant. Several other sections of the resolution provide the basis for other and more specific requests for further protections and commitment from the college. This resolution passed with a 50% majority and no friendly or unfriendly amendments.
Resolution Three — Voting Reform
Quorum was once again lost at 4:06, and reached at 4:15. Resolution #3, Voting Majority Reform, was presented by Nicholas Lasinsky, ‘23. This resolution was founded on the belief that having a lower standard of majority vote (½) for extratextual resolutions, meaning that less of the student body is in support, makes those resolutions seem less important with less community force behind them. As Lasinsky argued, “two-thirds is the golden standard in our current government…But extratextual resolutions are just as important as changing a line in the Constitution… a resolution passed by a stronger majority carries a message; it packs a punch. It is a genuine show of solidarity, an unequivocal statement that we back something overwhelmingly.”
An extensive Q&A and debate followed Lasinsky’s proposition. Students against the resolution argued that the community shouldn’t make it harder to come to an agreement on what gets put on President Wendy Raymond’s desk. Students supporting the resolution asserted that Haverford student voices would become more powerful as a result of raising the voting majority. Ultimately, with no friendly or unfriendly amendments, the resolution failed to pass.
Resolutions Four — One Cards
Resolution number four concerned a request for One Card access to be applicable to all dorms, not only the building a cardholder resides in. This resolution was presented by seniors Jack Crump and Isha Mehta, who argued that the sense of community derived from all students having access to all dorm buildings was valuable to reconstructing the comfort and spontaneity of the social atmosphere following the earlier days of the COVID pandemic. Some students responded during the Pro/Con debate by saying that this increased access would pose a danger to the community, and build fear around who could be allowed in students’ private spaces. Others countered that most students are able to get into other dorms regardless, by waiting for someone with a key card to pass by. It was argued that the Honor Code would create a standard for behavior in others’ dorms, and that the resolution overall would foster greater connections among students campus-wide. After a lengthy discussion and failed vote to extend the debate section, the resolution passed.
Resolution Five — Posters
At this point in the Plenary proceedings, time was slipping away and an informal vote was held to extend the event in order to hear a full argument for the remaining resolution. The proposal failed, and Resolution number five, arguing for the removal of expired posters from campus bulletin boards, failed to pass through another informal vote.
Resolution Six — Alcohol Policy
Finally, the college’s Alcohol Policy was re-ratified through informal vote with a two-thirds majority, and Plenary was concluded at 6:03 PM.
