At 1pm on March 24, students began lining up outside the Haverford College GIAC for Spring Plenary. Three resolutions were on the agenda for the afternoon, plus the traditional ratification of the Honor Code. Doors opened at 1:45 pm, and by 2:30 pm, quorum was reached.
State of the Ford
A quick word on the State of the Ford by Students’ Council Co-Presidents, Maria Reyes Pacheco and Jorge Paz Reyes ’24, included a recap of the emergency plenary which the two student leaders had triggered in order to present a ceasefire resolution to the student body. Though the resolution did not pass at that time, it found support with the majority of voters, and the Co-Presidents summarized their effort to spread this data to peer colleges such as Middlebury, Vassar, Morehouse, Smith, Wellesley, Wesleyan, and Kenyon Colleges. Further updates on the past year in office included a revamp of the International Student Lounge, and a renovation of the Skate House by the duck pond.
Since the Fall 2023 Plenary, two of the resolutions passed were immediately implemented, that of the Community Outreach Multicultural Liaisons and updates to Student Council procedures. The third of the Fall resolutions, and the most difficult to implement, was the raising of the student minimum wage. Reyes Pacheco gave a positive update, stating that “As of now, administration has given approval for a $1.75 increase on conditional approval with details being finalized by Dean McKnight and the Controller’s office. Final confirmation should be released to the community in a few weeks.”
Community Comment
With the controversial ceasefire resolution back on the table, Community Comment notably gave space for statements by Haverford Students for Peace (SFP), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), and an anonymous comment from students on Zoom who were against the resolution. Tala, a representative from SFP, stated “We are back here again and nothing has really changed since the last Plenary. Another representative asserted that Haverford’s own white rich community…prides itself on its liberal values, yet turns a blind eye to the suffering of the marginalized.”
SFP and SJP urged students to take action in a variety of ways, one being a vote on the ceasefire resolution.
A Zoom comment questioned the intention of the resolution, asking, “How many people have felt peer pressured to take some initiative? Does pressure to be one, still make us one?” The statement concluded, “let’s not create oppositional micro-communities. Let’s open our minds and be comfortable knowing how different worlds have merged. We are Jewish students. Please see us.”
Resolution 1: Effective, Efficient, Restorative Honor Council Procedures
With the Rules of Order passed, the presenters of the first resolution came to the stage. This resolution built on past resolutions regarding a reimagining of Honor Council procedures as less punitive and time consuming processes. The flaws in the current procedure being addressed were firstly, the lack of imperative for faculty to report all Honor Code violations to the Council, and secondly, the tendency for Honor Council trials to perpetuate systemic harm against marginalized students.
Honor Council Co-Chairs Ethan Baker and Sarah Campbell ’24 proposed the following changes, neatly condensed into two graphics outlining alterations in the procedures for violations of the social code, and the academic code. These changes, they asserted, “return power to students by routing cases through Honor Council, deterring professors from unilaterally making decisions about the academic fate of their students.” They emphasized that the procedures “create more efficient processes, more effective resolutions, and more restorative outcomes.”
Only one question was asked during the Q&A, regarding the timeline of the resolution, and no pros or cons were brought up in the debate section. No amendments were suggested, and after a length of silence spent ensuring nobody wanted to speak on the resolution, voting commenced, and the resolution passed.
Resolution 2: Updating Students’ Council Responsibilities Pt. 2
The second resolution was presented by the Students’ Council Vice Presidents, Grant DeVries and Kabir Hinduja-Obregon ’26. “This resolution can be summarized into three sections,” DeVries said, “updates to role descriptions, updates to the budgeting procedure, and clarification of the appointment process.” All three sections make allowances for the current Student Constitution to more accurately reflect the activities of the Students’ Council by revising role descriptions and officially establishing such things as the Budgeting Committee and processes for appointment of positions within student government.
No questions were asked, and after a very brief and lighthearted pro-con debate, voting commenced; the resolution was passed with a supermajority.
Resolution 3: Ceasefire Resolution
Presenters of the Ceasefire Resolution included representatives of the co-sponsors: Bi-Co Jewish Voice for Peace, the Muslim Students’ Association, and the board of the Jewish Student Union. The presenters first spoke to the student body about the current death toll and ongoing suffering of both Palestinian and Israeli communities. Then they declared that “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.” Many students waved small Palestinian flags as the presenters spoke, which had been handed out to those who wanted them at the door.
The Q&A portion brought up questions focused largely on what the impact of the resolution would be, asking how it would help mitigate violence in Gaza. Presenters answered these questions with reaffirmations that passing the resolution would make a powerful statement from a student body determined to hold their institution accountable, especially, they noted, an institution which is grounded in Quaker values of pacifism. Jared Saef ’25, representative of JSU, added, “this will set a very important precedent for our community and will facilitate conversation about the ongoing violence in Gaza.” One student asked how the student body could be sure that President Wendy Raymond wouldn’t veto the resolution. Presenters responded that initial conversations with Wendy informed how the resolution was written, in the hopes of her signing it, but that her signature was not necessary for the student body to make this statement.
The pro-con debate saw much the same rhetoric and pro to con ratio as that of the emergency plenary town halls held a month prior, though one student’s comment in favor of the resolution drew a particularly loud round of applause. This was from Allison Landweber, a junior who described her personal experience with Zionism and the way her mind has been changed since October 7th. “I grew up in a white liberal jewish family who was fed zionist propaganda from a very young age,” she said. “When you grow up, surrounded by that, it is easier to see it as a two-sided conflict. That’s how I saw it on October 6th. I want to say that the activism of this student body, the work done for organizers advocating for Palestinian rights on campus has changed my stance on this issue…”
The single con presented was anonymously sent on Zoom, and asserted, “This resolution is not a direct application of values and beliefs; it is a non-objective political statement, and I want to acknowledge that everyone in this room has values that they will enact with their vote; Quaker or other values do not necessitate any specific vote.” Presenters responded in their concluding statement by restating that Quaker values importantly include pacifism, and that the resolution speaks adamantly against any violence.
With no amendments proposed, voting commenced, and the resolution was passed.
Honor Code Ratification
Finally, a vote was held to open further voting on the ratification of the Honor Code, held electronically on the fourth and fifth days following Spring Plenary. The vote was opened,* and with that, Spring Plenary had come to an end, in only slightly over two hours.
Final Rundown
So how did we do this semester? StuCo Co-President Reyes Pacheco said, “I think it was an accomplishment, we reached quorum in a very good time, we were able to maintain quorum, we avoided Splenary …” She mentioned a small amount of disappointment in the lack of community engagement with the first two resolutions, but added, “we appreciated the community’s trust in both Honor Council and Student Council that were important and allow us to continue holding shared governance structures.”
Students present at Spring Plenary showed great support for the Ceasefire Resolution, despite its failing to pass at emergency plenary. The reason, Reyes Pacheco says, comes down primarily to the required quorum number, which is much lower at a regular plenary, and discussions on the topic which had been going on among community members for weeks before March 24th.
Ella Brooks-Kamper ’25, a member of the JSU board and co-presenter of the ceasefire resolution, said, “As one of the people standing up there presenting the resolution to the student body, witnessing the hundreds of people raise their placards to vote in favor of passing the resolution all at once was overwhelming.” Brooks-Kamper mentioned that she and fellow campus activists had heard from an administrator in late October that the student body did not feel capable of collective action to them. “I knew then, as I know now, they were wrong,” she says, “but it is invigorating to see them proven wrong so publicly. I think passing this resolution says that we are a community that is built not on a monolith of opinions but on shared values that we are always improving through dialogue. By passing the ceasefire resolution, we are stating that we, as a student body, are committed to the values this school claims to uphold and that we are members of a critically thinking community.”
Now the resolutions make their way to Wendy, and the Haverford community waits to hear her response, particularly anticipated with regard to the Ceasefire Resolution. “I want to believe that she will respect the voice of the student body,” Brooks-Kamper says. “I personally believe that she will sign it.”
Whether or not Wendy does show her approval of these three resolutions, Fords showed up for the 2024 Spring Plenary to make their voices heard, and are sending a strong message of their intentions the President’s way.
*As of March 30th, the Honor Code was ratified in an electronic, asynchronous vote.
