On April 2, the Haverford College community gathered for Special Plenary, a follow up to the regular Spring Plenary that was held after the original plenary failed to reach quorum. According to Haverford bylaws, failure to reach quorum during regular Plenary will trigger the suspension of the Honor Code until a second plenary, aptly titled “Special Plenary”, is held. Failure to reach quorum at Special Plenary will result in the suspension of the Honor Code for until Fall Plenary. Thankfully, Special Plenary (or “Splenary”) has come and gone, and we can all breathe a sigh of relief, for the Haverford Honor Code is officially ratified once more. The week leading up to April 2 was filled with flyers, emails, words of worry among friends and faculty, and a massive amount of organization on the part of Student Council, Honor Council, and every student presenting plenary resolutions, some for the second time.
Special Plenary was set to begin at noon, but at 11:15, students began lining up outside the Gardener Integrated Athletic Center, anxious to find a comfortable seat, and lured by the promise of boba tea for the first 600 people to arrive. A lengthy process of filing in, picking up Splenary stickers and beverages and setting up various lounge spaces across the gym floor ensued. Students came prepared to settle in, with blankets, pillows, pool floaties and one or two quickly constructed living room sets. At 12:58, a quorum composed of 75% of the student body was reached. After a delightful and energizing performance by Haverford’s own dance troupe, Bounce, Splenary began.
It was announced after the Rules of Order were presented that all voting during the Special Plenary would be conducted via informal vote. This involves holding up pieces of paper to indicate a vote rather than struggling through the mess of having over a thousand students fill out a google form simultaneously. The announcement was received with an appropriately appreciative round of applause. The Rules of Order were passed by majority vote, and the presenters of Splenary’s first resolution came up to the plate.
Resolution #1: Honor Code Resolution
This resolution was presented by Emily Almgren ‘24, Sarah Campbell ‘24, Joey Carol ‘25 and Janani Suresh ‘23. It seeks to “update the Jurisdiction section of the Honor Code, significantly change the Academic Code and modify Honor Council practices regarding academic violations,” according to the Special Plenary Packet writeup. The primary goal of the resolution, as Campbell said, is to “make Honor Council proceedings less punitive and more focused on repair.” Essentially, the policy change calls for a move from the more formal trial process, outlined in Article 7 of the student constitution, to a mediated discussion between the confronted and confronting parties. A language alteration is also on the table, proposing to change the word “trial” to the word “proceeding” to discourage association between Honor Council practices and the U.S. criminal justice system. Other changes include making separation from the community a consequence decided on by only the Dean, so as to send a message that the Honor Council aims to repair relationships rather than act punitively. At Spring Plenary, concerns were voiced about the possibility of retaliation from any faculty member participating in a facilitated discussion. In response, a section was added to the resolution which suggests that both parties in a council proceeding sign non-retaliation agreements.
Questions were raised in the Q and A section of proceedings in reference to what kinds of violations would be addressed by this resolution, and how “minor” they would have to be in order to be considered. Presenters reaffirmed their view that this option for mediated discussion instead of the trial process would only be open to cases involving academic code violations, never social code violations. During the Pro-Con debate, students argued for the necessity of getting this resolution passed as quickly as possible, so as to avoid any more discomfort and punitive consequences associated with the Honor Council’s trial process. Others pushed back, saying that the policy change needed more work in terms of narrowing its scope and focusing on defining its boundaries. In response to the debate, presenter Janani Suresh remarked, “We’re largely putting into writing what previous councils have been putting into practice … The beauty of the code is that students can always bring changes to it. No one here thinks that everything here is going to be perfect with this resolution. It is a step in the right direction and it is the responsibility of future bodies to continue to improve that. We want to encourage everyone to keep doing that work.” Ultimately, the resolution was passed by majority vote, without any friendly or unfriendly amendments.
Resolution #2: Structural Changes to Honor Code in the Constitution
The second resolution presented had great similarity to the first, in that it sought to move from punitive to restorative practices within Honor Council proceedings. However, this resolution proposed larger changes to the Constitution, rather than the Honor Code itself. Rafael Montero ‘24, Holly Vincent ‘26, Ishir Gupta ‘25, Grant DeVries ‘26, members of The Honor Council Constitutional Committee, presented. “Firstly,” Montero began, “the resolution adds three Diversity Representatives to Honor Council: a Representative for BIPOC students, a Representative for International Students and a Representative for Access and Disability Inclusion.” In introducing these positions to the Council, the Constitutional Committee hopes to mitigate instances of bias towards marginalized students. The second facet of the resolution is essentially identical to that proposed by Resolution #1, but would be executed in the Constitution rather than the Code. The Pro-Con debate also centered around the same issues as debate on Resolution #1, bringing up concerns about putting punitive power solely in the Dean’s hands.
After the conclusion of the Pro-Con debate, a friendly amendment was brought to the table. While facilitators deliberated and organized the presentation of the amendment, a message circulated that more boba tea had been brought to the GIAC lobby, along with a plethora of snacks. A line began to form down the center of the room, as students took the opportunity this pause in the proceedings afforded. Yet we did not wait for long, and the line was quickly disbanded as the community once again settled in. The amendment, presented by Willy Aguilar Montenegro ‘25, Estrella Pachecho ‘25 and Yehyun Song ‘25, proposed that “the diversity reps work within the COML framework in order to not tokenize minority students, provide culturally competent resources and keep these resources separate.” However, some students did not find that this amendment addressed their issues with the resolution as a whole. After a short informal vote, Resolution #2 failed to pass.
Ratification of the Honor Code
Not once had quorum been lost by this point in the Special Plenary agenda, which cheered the community considerably; all could taste the prospect of easily concluding Splenary before the sun set. Honor Council Co-Heads Janani Suresh ‘23 and Rafael Montero ‘24 presented the Code for ratification, prefacing the vote with a speech recapping the events of the day. “We are really excited about the student body’s move towards more empathetic and restorative practice around the resolution changing the code,” Suresh said, “We hope this change ushers in a new wave of open engagement with the Honor Code, and that students, particularly those facing various levels of marginalization or power dynamics in and outside the classroom feel ultimately supported by the new additions to our community values.” The Co-Heads also expressed both their gratitude for the attendance of so many students, and their concern regarding the apathy towards the Code displayed at Spring Plenary so recently. During the Pro-Con debate, similar worries were voiced, as some students chose to approach the discussion humorously, while others admonished this action for its lack of concern for the gravity of the situation and the importance of the code. With a final bid from Suresh to ensure that students acknowledge our “shared responsibility to protect and foster self-governance for future generations of students,” electronic voting was opened for the ratification of the Honor Code. At 3:18 PM, after a brief struggle with the wifi, a cheer went up: the Code was ratified once more.
President Raymond Responds
On April 18th, President Wendy Raymond sent out her responses to the Spring Plenary Resolutions via email to the community. Both resolutions, on voting accessibility and ranked choice voting in student elections, were accepted, the first with stipulations, and the second without. Refer to the article on Spring Plenary for a refresh on these resolutions and what they entail. President Raymond will be in further contact with the community about responses to Special Plenary resolutions by May 2.
