Only five days after the 2024 Presidential Election, the results of which lay somewhat of a pall over Haverford College’s community, the student body gathered in the Gardner Integrated Athletics Center (GIAC) — and in quiet satellite rooms — to discuss and vote on two resolutions in the longstanding democratic tradition of Haverford College: plenary.
Two resolutions were presented at 2024 Fall Plenary. The first concerned institutional tax coverage for international students’ summer funding, and the second concerned allocating institutional funding for COVID tests and masks to be made freely available to all students, staff, and faculty. Both resolutions were ultimately passed, though an amendment was added to the latter, which prolonged and intensified both the Q&A and Pro/Con debate sections of the plenary procedure.
Prior to the event, Students’ Council Co-Presidents Victoria Haber ‘26, and Yehyun Song ‘25 sent out the plenary packet, as well as a recorded “message to the community.” Their message acknowledged the moment’s fraught atmosphere, on a personal and global level. “You may be feeling emotionally exhausted; you may be feeling overwhelmed, heavy-hearted, confused, anger, or even fearful with the uncertainties around you,” Haber began. Song stated, “we see you, we hear you, and most importantly we care for you.”
Haber and Song emphasized the value of community and compassion in their message, noting that dialogue which assumes each person’s best intentions is the most fruitful. The Co-Presidents expressed their gratitude for the Haverford community, and the support they have found within it. Song concluded, “despite our differences, it’s important for us to share our compassion, our humility, and respect for one another. And I believe that is a community we can build. A community that cares, that shares concern, trust, respect … I believe that is what makes us Fords. So let us comfort one another, especially those in need. But let us also rejoice — I know it can be hard — but let us rejoice in the joy that shines through the storm.”
At 2:40 p.m., after a performance from Haverford’s BOUNCE Dance Team, and 40 minutes after doors opened, quorum was reached and plenary began. The Co-Presidents presented The State of the Ford, touching on their intention to take a grassroots approach to governance, and primary focuses in the coming year, which you can learn about more holistically from The Bi-College News interview with both student leaders.
The time slot for Community Comment saw reminders from Haverford’s Community Outreach Multicultural Liasons (COMLS) and Counseling & Psychological Services about their services, and a call for donations from Bi-Co Mutual Aid — “… especially right now, we have to rely on each other for support and care,” the representatives stated. “Our systems and institutions are failing us, and they aren’t supporting urgent needs within our communities.”
Resolution 1: Equitable Tax Coverage for International Students’ Summer Funding
The first resolution on the table advocated for equitable tax coverage for international students’ summer funding. While the summer stipends of students from the US are only subject to domestic taxes, international students awarded the same stipends may lose up to 16% more of their funding than domestic students to international tax rates.
Most summer stipends awarded by the college amount to less than $5000, meaning that international students must often seek additional funding to support living costs throughout the summer. The resolution notes that “Philadelphia … has a lowest average rent of $1403/month and estimated monthly cost (excluding rent) of $1287/month – and many students intern in cities with higher cost of living than Philadelphia. Haverford College Summer Housing fees range from $1012~$2692, with additional costs for staying on campus before and after the summer housing period.”
The resolution emphasizes the disproportionate effect of these inequities on FGLI (First Generation Low Income) and BIPOC students, and further expressed issues with the college’s method of conveying tax information, which have not been “transparent, accessible, or timely,” according to the resolution.
In an effort to resolve this inequity, Coco Liu, Students’ Council International Student Representative, proposed the creation of a task force composed of four students including Liu, Dean John McKnight, “and/or Marissa Deitch (Executive Director of the Center for Career and Professional Advising; Summer Experiences for All), Natasha Weisz (Director of International Student Support), and a staff member from the Controller’s Office.” The resolution recommends that this tax force pursue coverage of international students’ taxes when their stipends are classified to be taxed at 30%, “to ensure equitable summer funding.” The resolution further suggests that this funding be incorporated into the Summer Experiences for All initiative, part of Haverford’s 2030 Strategic Plan.
The Q&A portion of the presentation went by quickly; only two questions were asked, and focused on where funding for the resolution would be found, and how much it would cost. Liu noted that the funding would ideally not be a catalyst for raising student tuition, and furthermore would likely be a fluctuating budget based on which summer job stipends need to be covered in a given year.
The Pro/Con debate passed swiftly too, with only one single speaker, in favor of the resolution: Maša (Masha) Kilibarda ‘26, an international student originally from Montenegro, spoke passionately about her experience, urging the community to aid in supporting her peers: “I personally live for the day when students like me will be able to work at least a little bit less because they’ll be supported by their community at least a little bit more,” she said. “As a low-income international student here, I have to fully financially support [myself] because my parents, they just can’t afford to, and I have to take care of all my legal documents on my own … I have no other support network here other than the people at Haverford College … [being at Haverford] is a life-changing opportunity for [low income international students], and we need your support.”
With no amendments offered, voting commenced, and the resolution passed without a single nay vote in sight.
“I’m glad that we have made the first step in improving equity and access for international students,” Liu told the Bi-Co News. “I see this resolution as …having three timelines: the timeline for the task force, the timeline for short-term/ad hoc solutions before Haverford 2030, and the timeline for a sustainable solution as a part of Haverford 2030 (the Summer Experience for All Initiative). Hopefully, the task force will be formed and start meeting this semester, and, by the end of this academic year, find feasible short-term solutions as well as include a long-term solution in the proposal for Haverford 2030.”
There may be obstacles in the process, but Liu has put her faith in the capability of a dedicated task force. “Based on my conversations with President Raymond and other stakeholders regarding the resolution, I do anticipate some complications in implementing the resolution, due to the complicated nature of things like budgeting and tax classification. I’m hoping that through the formation of the task force, we will be able to bring together relevant stakeholders and find a solution to the issue as efficiently as possible.”
Resolution 2: Promoting Disability Justice Through COVID Resource Accessibility
Presented by Disability Advocacy for Students at Haverford (DASH), the second resolution of the afternoon addressed concerns regarding insufficient institutional protections for students against COVID. Disabled and immunocompromised students, staff, and faculty are at higher risk of contracting and being affected by the illness, the resolution stated, and “lack of access to high quality masks and tests disproportionately burdens our vulnerable community members with the responsibility to self-provide personal protective equipment.”
Access to testing and to masks are limited from Haverford Health Services. The service only provides the former if a student is experiencing specific symptoms, and the masks offered are proven to be less effective against the spread of COVID.
Bi-Co COVID Co, (BCCC) a student run club, has tracked high demand for these resources in the Spring semester of 2024. As such, the resolution suggested that the college provide at least 20 masks (KN95, KF94, N95), and four rapid COVID 19 tests per semester per student, staff, and faculty member. The resolution further provided for monthly meetings between DASH and Bi-Co Covid Co. to “evaluate, implement, and improve access for mask and test distribution.”
Again, the country’s current political climate was alluded to by the presenters, who noted that the incoming administration may make it more difficult to access resources like COVID vaccines, especially in view of suggestions from Trump allies that RFK Jr., who has spread misinformation about COVID vaccines in the past, was on the shortlist for the head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Since plenary, Kennedy has been appointed to the position.
This resolution was by far the more controversial of the two, not because of pushback against the premise, but because the implied funding request which far exceeded what much of the student body evidently thought necessary for COVID resources.
During the Q&A, students most notably asked how the estimate of 20 masks per person was derived, and how they would be paid for. DASH presenters replied that their estimates were based on BCCC’s records, but that DASH’s monthly meetings with the group would be used to reassess demand for resources as needed. “Those numbers are just a starting point, and we’ll see how the community responds,” presenter Renata Muñoz ‘25, said. In terms of funding, the answer was similar. Muñoz reasserted that the monthly meetings would provide time to pinpoint from where exactly Haverford can draw funds to support the resolution.
Several hands were left raised when a vote to extend the Q&A section failed; instead, the Pro/Con debate commenced.
Arguments in favor of the resolution advocated that community care is crucial in this post-election landscape. “This resolution will not force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do,” one student said. “It’s about providing access to healthcare for students that won’t cost them any extra money.”
Arguments in opposition hit one main points of objection: waste of resources. One dissenter, Peter LaRochelle ‘25, sparked heated replies from several students. His speaking time began with a question: “How many people here in the past week have wanted to wear a mask, but didn’t because they couldn’t afford one?” Not a single student raised their hand, and the dissenter continued, “Okay so nobody said they did, so that tells me that … this resolution [is] just a waste of money…” The comment garnered both general applause and murmurings among attendees. Two students echoed the dissenter’s concern over the conjectured 26,000 masks which would be required, but Cristian LaTorre ‘27 gave a particularly impassioned rebuttal, stating “I think we can all agree that it can be really hard to ask for help sometimes, and I think it’s inappropriate to ask students who are [low income] to raise their hands in front of all of their peers … If help was being offered more easily … students wouldn’t have to come [to plenary] and ask for it.” He added, “I care about the people in my community, and you should too.”
At 4 p.m., the Pro/Con debate was extended by vote. The next pro was sent in via Zoom; this student speaker told a personal story about his dorm’s lack of resources and consistent failed requests for tests. “The school funding this instead of a club is basically the bare minimum,” they said. The next student speaker presented the objection that purchasing so many masks and tests would be depriving other communities outside Haverford, to which Muñoz replied during the allotted response time, “If we’re concerned about people outside this community becoming more vulnerable from us buying more resources, that actually wouldn’t happen … If we’re protecting ourselves, whoever we come in contact with at least won’t get sick from us … if that’s a real concern you have and you’re not wearing a mask, unfortunately I find it a little bit hard to take it seriously.”
One of the last pro-resolution speakers mentioned that they “didn’t know where this discussion about waste [was] coming from,” noting that masks don’t expire, and tests have longer shelf lives than they used to. “While I do think they number of masks requested is a bit excessive … we can just use those masks the next semester.”
The Pro/Con debate concluded approximately fifteen minutes after it was extended, and the Co-Presidents called for proposed friendly or unfriendly amendments. It is plenary procedure for amendments to be submitted prior to the event, however, a chance is also given during plenary for students to come forward with last minute suggestions. In this case, a group of students did propose an amendment to the resolution, spending a period of time discussing its tenets and then presenting it to the student body at 4:30 p.m. Mei-Li Mikos ‘27 presented the amendment, outlining that it provided for an electronic survey to be sent to the entire student body which would garner data in respect to demand for COVID resources across campus. The results of the poll would be discussed at DASH’s and BCCC’s monthly meetings.
As per the Rules of Order, a Q&A was announced for the amendment; the central point of confusion addressed was whether, after initially opting out of the resource allocation, one could then still request them if circumstances changed. The consensus from presenters was that if passed, the resolution would provide for those emergency situations as well. The survey, Mikos added, would remain open after first sent out to provide a space for rolling requests throughout the semester. The Pro/Con debate featured discussion over whether the amendment provided “unnecessary barriers” to a pressing need for resources, in the words of Abigail Pauls ‘26, or whether it gave the previously “wishy washy” writing of the resolution a more concrete set of steps and a basis in statistics.
Presenters responded to the debate with a reassurance that details would be worked out in the coming weeks if the resolution passed, and were largely dependent on administration’s approval.
Both the amendment and the resolution passed at 4:56 p.m. and 5 p.m. respectively, by a great majority and general applause.
Speaking with the Bi-Co News, Muñoz said, “in our conversations in administration with administration, they’ve often tried to make this issue seem individual, like, Oh, this is only a you problem. So today at plenary, we really got to see that this actually affects all of us, and there’s some people who really, really need these resources.” Like Liu, however, Muñoz has concerns about the process towards getting the resolution approved by the administration. “I have been doing COVID advocacy since I was a freshman, and I’m a senior now, and I’ve been in a lot of conversations with administration about this, and unfortunately, those conversations have not been fruitful at all. … So what is what is promising is that now we have the support of the student body as we’re bringing up these issues. Hopefully that will motivate the administration to take our concerns more seriously.”
He added that there’s been a lack of transparency and clarity about the resources Haverford offers for as long as he’s been here. Since the beginning of this semester, for instance, signage in the Dining Center has limited takeout boxes to lunchtimes and restricted their use at dinner. This new policy has caused frustration among the student body, Rhianna Searle ‘27 writing in The Clerk that “students are being forced to sacrifice their and their peers’ wellbeing by not eating or going into a community space while ill.” But Muñoz notes, “if you’re sick, you can take out whenever you want, but they don’t tell people that. So there are students who are exposed to whooping cough, who are sick, who are going to eat in the DC, obviously unmasked, and have no idea that actually you can eat in a safer way.” He’s further frustrated by administration’s assertions that they’re following CDC guidelines, though Muñoz says that’s not entirely true. Haverford does not require its students to keep up with COVID vaccine boosters. “I haven’t been required to get a vaccine for COVID since probably sophomore year. And so what happens is that these vaccines over time, one, the efficiency decreases, and two, there are newer variants for COVID. Your older vaccine might not be made to protect you from a new variant.”
“Even if you don’t care,” they said, “you should care about getting other people sick, because that that can really be devastating, and stopping one train of transmission can actually save somebody’s life. So I’m grateful that we have kind of this space at Haverford where we can try to make some of those cultural changes about how we relate to each other as a community, and I hope people take that initiative to do that for themselves and for others.”
Half an hour after plenary was scheduled to end, quorum was on the verge of being lost. Two students making their way out the door were in fact halted in their tracks by a communal booing, for the afternoon was not over yet. Still to come was the ratification of the Alcohol Policy, presented by Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAP) Co-Heads Keyla Ramirez ‘25 and Tristan Charles ‘25. The policy, re-ratified each fall semester, provides guidelines to the student body regarding alcohol consumption on campus, and is founded, like the Honor Code, in trust that students will use their best judgement and follow guidelines to keep the community safe. With no questions, and only one speaker during the Pro/Con debate giving a pro statement, the policy was ratified for another year. At 5:10 p.m., plenary concluded.
Co-Presidents Song and Haber spoke with the Bi-Co News, reflecting on the day. Song said, “I would say the biggest takeaway right now is that despite the exhaustion that we were sensing across our campuses and our student body, I’m actually incredibly proud of our student body for turning out … the fact that we didn’t lose quorum is an incredible testament to how strong our students are.” Haber added, “It was definitely just so refreshing to see the spirit of Haverford, considering just we had a lot of fear surrounding student disengagement, students just not being interested anymore.”
Regarding debate over the second resolution, Song said, “I actually think that long debate, and sometimes rowdy debate,was exactly how we wanted our students to engage.” Haber agreed:
“I think the beauty of Pro/Con debate is not necessarily, ‘why don’t I like this person’ or something, but it’s once again, how can we bring a new perspective to a resolution that may not have been considered? What is it about a resolution [that is] particularly advantageous and where is it maybe struggling? And a lot of students brought that exact energy.”
This was the first plenary since last semester’s unorthodox two plenaries, both of which caused strain between campus groups over the conduct of the events. The spring semester of 2024 was fraught with political and social tension at Haverford College. One of the key points of contention which has continued to ripple throughout the summer and fall is the method by which plenary was conducted last semester. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, some students rallied behind a ceasefire resolution presented at an Emergency Plenary in early March, while some criticized what they saw as a select group of pro-Palestine students forcing the resolution to a vote against the wishes of other campus communities. Regular Spring Plenary was held later that same month, at which the ceasefire resolution passed, though the event’s open mic, and speeches made by pro-Palestine students became evidence in a lawsuit perpetrated against the Corporation of Haverford College by the unincorporated group “Jews at Haverford.” JAH claimed a Title VI Civil Rights violation and pointed to Spring Plenary as an example of their voices being silenced by student government’s conduct. There have been lengthy conversations on the topic in subsequent months, surrounding campus communications, the role of student government, and how to ensure that all Haverford students are able to have their voices heard in the longstanding plenary tradition.
The Community Guidelines included in this semester’s plenary packet were revised since last Spring to reiterate Student Councils’ commitment to valuing all voices, and included this line written by Students’ Council Co-Presidents Yehyun Song’25 and Victoria Haber ‘26: “In our conversations with community members, a concern that came up was whether student would feel safe and respected in expressing their opinion. We reassured them that…” followed by the same language used in the Spring Plenary Packet of 2024: “as Chairs of Plenary, Students’ Council is bound to ensure that the values of respect are met even when people disagree with one another; this is at the center of the value and meaning of Plenary. While every member is always bound to the standards of the Social Code, given the concerns brought up we believe it is important to delineate community guidelines for all discussion at Plenary so that we can be intentional in how we communicate and show care and respect to our fellow peers.”
This semester, Song said, “we were able to have a space where people felt comfortable to share what they thought, and in the end of the day at Haverford, we want to create a space where your thoughts and opinions and ideas [have a space.] And I’m really glad that we didn’t attack people, [but] rather, we challenged the ideas. That’s that’s what we’re all about.”
The next step for each resolution is approval by President Wendy Raymond, which is by no means guaranteed. But the resolution writing process has changed in the last couple years, Song said, “resolution writers have already been in contact with President Raymond and Vice President Jessie Lytle in order to make their resolutions feasible. … So we’re now at a point where we have had a much more streamlined approach of connecting senior administration with our students. … We anticipate that these resolutions that our students have worked hard on will see the light of day.” The plenary process is changing and growing every year, Song said, and in enacting those changes, each student government hopes to make it a little easier, a little more accessible, for students to have their voices heard and their plans put into motion.
Asked if they would have done anything differently this year, the Co-Presidents cited only minor technical issues, and Haber said that, if anything, “I think I would have had a lot more hours of sleep if I worried less than if I trusted my peers a little bit more … next year, hopefully, when we get asked the question, ‘what would you have done differently?’ we’ll say ‘nothing.’”
Norah Rivett contributed to this report.
