Since the introduction of a Ceasefire Resolution by Haverford Students’ Council, community discourse on the topic has ranged from full-throated support and open-minded engagement, to silent abstinence, and finally to direct and stated boycotting of the resolution. These varying stances were made apparent through social media, email communication, and two Plenary Town Halls, held on February 29th and March 3rd. The town halls yielded little in-person turnout, and a much higher proportion of debaters arguing for the resolution than against it. Yet, this was not due to a lack of opposition in the campus community; in fact, two student groups have voiced concerns regarding the Emergency Plenary process, and the tenets of the resolution.
A communication from the Chabad Student Board, sent directly following the plenary proposition, made it clear that they planned to abstain from both signing the petition to set an Emergency Plenary in motion, and from voting if the plenary were held. The resolution writers, having reached out to Chabad previously for feedback, were not made aware of this intention before the resolution was introduced to the student body.
Another group under the name “Concerned Jewish Students” (referred to as CJS in this article) created an instagram devoted to persuading the student body to abstain from the vote. “The emergency plenary will only divide us,” they wrote. “Let’s take steps to encourage meaningful dialogue and coexistence.” This is a comprehensive rundown of what’s being said in favor of and against the Ceasefire resolution, both within the structure of plenary dialogue, and outside it.
The First Plenary Town Hall
The first Plenary Town Hall on the evening of February 29th was held in Marshall Auditorium. A small selection of students trickled in over the first ten minutes, and eventually plenary was called to order at 7:41. Students’ Council Co-Heads Maria Reyes Pacheco and Jorge Paz Reyes began by outlining the section of the student constitution which allows them to call for a Further Plenary, initiated when a petition is signed by 40% of the student population.
Paz Reyes explained, “Maria and I as Co-Presidents could not rightfully ignore the importance of the violence in Gaza, especially after the events of last semester. Last semester, time and time again, we were told that we needed to use the “Haverfordian” mechanisms in place to promote inclusivity and dialogue. And as we reflected during the break we saw Plenary as just the way to do that and a structure that was within our jurisdiction as a Students’ Association.”
Reyes Pacheco continued, “As cheesy as it may sound there is no community without unity. And here we emphasize that we do not mean unity in the sense that every single student shares the same values. If this were the case all resolutions would pass with consensus. If this was the case we students of color wouldn’t experience microaggressions on the day-to-day even though we are part of an “anti-racist institution.” So, yes Plenary is intended to unify the student body even if we don’t all agree and this is grounded in the foundational principles of shared trust and respect which we signed up for when we became Fords.”
The rules of procedure were then read out, brought to a vote, and ratified by the odd 30-40 students present. The Co-Presidents then began reading out the Community Guidelines, modified using a list established by Nikki Young, Vice President for Institutional Equity and Access. The guidelines emphasized coming from a place of curiosity, respect, “compassion, care, and thoughtfulness.” A last addition included the discouragement of doxxing, especially through social media.
After a presentation of the resolution in its entirety, three representatives of groups co-sponsoring the resolution came to the mic. Harrison, a representative of Jewish Voice for Peace, began: “As members of JVP, MSA, and JSU, we cannot sit in silence while the enormous destruction of civilian life in Israel/Palestine continues,” then giving a breakdown of the Israeli and Palestinian fatality and hostage numbers. Shahla, a representative of the Muslim Students’ Association continued, “As a student body, this resolution publicly makes a stand against this ongoing violence and calls on peer academic institutions, our surrounding community, and elected officials to do the same …” Jared, a representative of the Jewish Student Union concluded, “This destruction has had very real impacts for many of our community members as well, most visibly being the shooting of one of our own Palestinian students. In addition to our religious backgrounds, as students at a Quaker institution, we seek to uphold our college’s values of non-violence and anti-militarism and encourage others to do the same.”
The Q&A presentation began with a reminder of community guidelines, and lasted less than 10 minutes. One student asked “what immediate or tangible effect” the resolution would have if passed. Reyes Pacheco answered by reiterating that the resolution is, at its core, a value statement. “By having the space to show what respectful dialogue can look like even when you disagree with someone,” she said, “the goal is that it can create a trickle effect where people continue to engage with this issue, and enter spaces where people are advocating for this issue.” Paz Reyes added that last semester, some community members found Haverford to be a fractured community unable to engage meaningfully with one another. He and Reyes Pacheco hope that the dialogue prompted by this resolution will prove that this is not true.
The Pro-Con debate included five statements of support for the resolution, and one statement of opposition. One proponent of the resolution, a member of the JSU board said, “I am in favor of passing this resolution, grounded in the values of recognizing human rights and human dignity for all Palestinains. We encourage everyone to sign on as it is our duty as students and citizens of the world to call for a ceasefire.”
Finally, a statement of opposition was put forth by a student in the audience. Though acknowledging that his “issue with the resolution [was] minor,” he said, “The resolution calls for an end to one of the tragedies, but it doesn’t call for the end of the other, as it doesn’t call for the release of the hostages. I oppose this resolution because it doesn’t include parallel language to the call for a ceasefire with the release of hostages. I think as a community we can hold both sides in our heart.”
The Co-Presidents responded to the debate by emphasizing that the resolution does not seek to get into the specifics of providing a solution to the conflict in Gaza, but seeks peace within the Haverford community, especially in acknowledging the suffering on both sides of the conflict through providing fatality and hostage numbers of both sides.
The Second Plenary Town Hall
On the afternoon of March 3rd, a second Plenary Town Hall was held. With approximately 813 votes, by this time, 200 more were needed to pass the resolution.
The Co-Presidents opened this Town Hall with a proud recognition of the dialogue they had seen in the last four days, and a disappointed acknowledgement of the fact that engagement in voting had not been as high as they had hoped. Paz Reyes noted, “we’re struggling to have folks open up a Google Form because they don’t care to engage … we have a portion of people on the campus who have the privilege to ignore and not engage with this process.” The Co-Presidents called on the community to reflect on how and why they feel able to distance themselves from this issue. Reyes Pacheco emphasized the need for empathy and compassion, especially for students on campus who are being directly affected by the war.
The plenary process began again; rules of order were ratified, and community guidelines were presented. The first question during the Q&A section asked what would happen if the resolution failed to pass. Paz Reyes answered that there were two ways to proceed. Firstly, the resolution could simply fail to pass. Second, it could be reintroduced at regular plenary on March 24th. The Co-Presidents have, since the resolution was introduced, said adamantly that this second option is not desirable. Reyes Pacheco explained that general plenary might not feel as welcoming or safe for speakers, which is why they wanted to hold these more intimate and anonymous town halls.
Another student asked what would happen if the resolution was only passed under a simple majority, and wasn’t necessarily indicative of the whole community’s feelings on the matter. Reyes Pacheco responded that neither she or Jorge want to cover up the true numbers, whatever they may be. Paz Reyes added, “Going back to the point of unity … it doesn’t mean that we all agree … whatever percentage shows, at least we can say that we all came together to vote on this, despite the differences in perspectives.”
A third student asked what channels the resolution would go through if it were to pass, so that it doesn’t just “go nowhere.” Reyes Pacheco explained that the resolution is intended to be “the groundwork for things to come and things that are already happening.” It will have to be signed by Wendy, and because it will be a statement coming from the majority of the student body, it will have a “seal of approval,” she said. The Co-Presidents intend to take the resolution, if it is passed, to local lobbying groups, as evidence that there is a community of students who care about the issue and are trying to make change.
The Pro-Con debate once again ultimately leaned towards a pro stance, with multiple students expressing their continuing principles of peace and anti-militarism. One speaker intoned the Hebrew words for “repairing the world,” and stated, “I do not see a better approach to repairing the world than anti-militarism.” Another emphasized the need to get momentum going in this continuing dialogue by supporting the resolution.
Though cons had been few and far between, an online attendee wrote a statement through the Zoom chat which rebuked the resolution for failing to include any demands on Hamas to release hostages, and urging the community to “differentiate between people and politics.” Asking the rhetorical question, “wasn’t there a ceasefire on October 6th?” the speaker challenged the notion that calling for a ceasefire would make meaningful change. They asserted that they regret they cannot speak openly for fear of retribution, but that they admire the efforts of Students’ Council to create unity and a welcoming environment.
In response to this message, a student speaking in support of the resolution said emphatically that hearing perspectives like those is incredibly important, but that the community should be focusing on the specific language of the resolution, namely a call for the end of violence in Gaza.
After a final statement from the Co-Presidents in which they encouraged further engagement and voting, the town hall was concluded.
The Voices of Those Boycotting
All told, the number of students who spoke in favor of the resolution came to eight, while only two students spoke in opposition. However, these numbers may not accurately represent opinions on the resolution across campus; they only represent opinions of those who chose to engage in the process of the Emergency Plenary. The group “Concerned Jewish Students” and the Chabad Student Board both made it clear in communications since the introduction of the resolution that they would not be expressing their opinions in the forum offered by Emergency Plenary. In an infographic posted to their Instagram account, they wrote, “while framed as a ‘call for peace,’ this resolution is performative at best, and it will have no impact on policy change.” The group listed four of what they believe will be negative repercussions of the resolution: that it will shut down meaningful dialogue, isolate members of the community, put Haverford college on the wrong side of history by “failing to acknowledge” the atrocities Hamas has committed, and divide the community.
CJS spoke with the Bi-Co News about their message to the community and their urge to abstain from voting.
The Bi-Co News asked, “you write that the resolution is ‘shutting down meaningful dialogue.’ Those who disagree with your message have cited the opportunity to discuss amendments at Plenary Town Halls as an occasion for engaging in meaningful dialogue; how do you think this opportunity will not satisfy the need for a recognition of all student views?”
CJS answered: “the goal of an honest dialogue, in our view, is to express differing positions along a spectrum of views within our community and to find common ground that allows us to appreciate where the other side is coming from and perhaps even bring the sides closer together. The opposite of honest dialogue is pressuring people to “join the cause” by signing a statement that rejects and excludes the viewpoints of a group of students that are directly affected by the issue in question … [Students’ Council] is promoting an environment that forces students to defend themselves in front of the student body, which is not true dialogue.”
One of the central themes of the group’s pushback is the fear of retribution, or of being alienated from the rest of the community. In an infographic, CJS asserted that the resolution would have “no impact on policy change” at the college. When asked what kind of policy change they might advocate for, CJS answered: “Honest and open dialogue about Israel, backed by facts and history rather than blood libels. Respect for peers and colleagues with differing views, not witch hunts to punish them for stepping out of line. Difference of opinion should be seen as a virtue in an academic community. Instead, it has become a scarlet letter.”
Paz Reyes, when asked for comment on this accusation, spoke specifically in reference to the words “witch hunt,” saying, “The goal of this procedure is not to isolate or punish anyone. There’s no part of plenary that leads to that.” He cited the Student’ Council’s Instagram account, which has posted many statements of intention in the last four days regarding the resolution, most salient here being the emphasis on “the ability to come together to discuss, disagree, and yet understand each other with respect,” as well as their hope to “create spaces for respectful dialogue, to engage in meaningful conversation while disagreeing, and to demonstrate that Haverford is not a fractured community.” Paz Reyes added, “I think it’s valid to feel discouraged or intimidated to talk to a big group of students, especially about a topic that’s very emotionally close to you.” Reyes Pacheco chimed in, saying that this plenary was meant to be a particularly safe space to discuss sensitive issues, since speakers could remain anonymous and engage in dialogue in a smaller space with less of an intimidating audience. “It makes more sense to vote right now,” she said, “because you have the option to debate anonymously. We were very intentional in making this procedure as inclusive as possible.”
CJS, however, does not see a ceasefire resolution as the solution. Instead, they argue that calling for a ceasefire “means that Hamas will remain in power in Gaza, where it can begin planning to repeat the atrocities of October 7th, as it has already promised to do. There WAS in fact a ceasefire until October 7th. To call for an “immediate and permanent” ceasefire after October 7th and before Israel achieves its goals (of destroying Hamas and rescuing the hostages) is to hand victory to Hamas.”
When asked if they would consider meeting with resolution writers at this point to discuss changes or a new resolution, CJS wrote, “Not at this point. They know in their heart of hearts that this process isn’t right … I want to reiterate that we are not happy about the current situation. There’s tremendous destruction in Gaza and suffering and bloodshed. To be a concerned Jewish student is the opposite of apathy and carelessness. These are difficult times for all people, and we need to come together and embrace each other and truly pray for the end of this conflict. But we take issue with the way this is being forced on us and the oversimplification of a complex issue into a few feel-good sentences.”
Whether or not the resolution passes, the Co-Presidents feel that the process has been good for fostering dialogue among students. Reyes Pacheco says, “some of the feelings of unease that come from having dialogue are symptoms of a deeper problem in Haverford’s culture … work regarding the resolution has allowed this group of Haverfordians to think more positively of conversations, informal or formal, surrounding topics that are related to violence.” She emphasized her hope that the group of students at Haverford right now could build on these positive steps forward, and continue the conversation.
Not voting can be strategic in this case, it doesn’t mean people don’t care. It is more likely the resolution would have failed due to lack of voters than due to Yes vs No votes. So “no” voters may choose not to vote.
Thanks for the comprehensive article!