Spring plenary saw hundreds of Haverford students – dressed on-theme in wizard hats, with complimentary boba in hand – pour into the GIAC and satellite rooms around campus to debate and vote on five resolutions, in addition to the annual opening of online voting to ratify the Honor Code. Students’ Council began welcoming attendees into the building at 2 p.m. By 6 p.m. all five resolutions had been passed, and the Honor Code was opened for ratification.
In order of their presentation at plenary on March 23, these five resolutions concerned a shortened and clarified Students’ Association Constitution, the initiation of a school-wide SEPTA UPass system; the creation of a task force to increase and make sustainable funding for the NEST; a lobby for the acceptance of post-9/11 GI bill benefits by the college’s admissions department to reduce the financial hardship of students of military families, and the addition of procedure to the Honor Code to deal with violations made by Honor Council Members. Three out of five resolutions passed without extensive debate, but chaotic proceedings surrounding the SEPTA UPass resolution and heated discourse on the GI bill resolution prolonged plenary proceedings.
Concerns about meeting quorum circulated pre-plenary as a line of students slowly formed outside the doors to the Gardner Integrated Athletic Center (GIAC). A series of announcements made by Haber encouraged students to “…text, email, do whatever it is to remind your friends to come if they’re not here yet!” Messages calling for students to attend Plenary were issued by email and in club GroupMes, including from the Student Council Co-Presidents, Haverford Outdoors Club (HavOC), Jewish Student Union (JSU), the Climbing Club, and more, as attendance rose to around 80% of quorum by 2:11 p.m.
Haverford’s BOUNCE Dance Team performed as quorum climbed steadily, and twenty minutes later, the Zoom link previously only provided to students who had requested it by form was sent out by email to all students. At 2:36 p.m. — a little over an hour after doors to the GIAC opened — quorum was achieved, and the proceedings began.
The State of the Fords was delivered jointly by Haber and Song, and discussed Students’ Council’s accomplishments, the status of fall-semester Plenary resolutions, and current campus concerns. The address foregrounded the effects on students of a rapidly shifting federal landscape, including fear and uncertainty surrounding “academic research funds…threats to DEI programs…heightened dangers toward the undocu+ community and attacks on the LGBTQIA+ [community],” but offered encouragement in reiterating shared community values of “kindness, love, patience, radical listening” and directed students to resources like Students for Reproductive Health (SRH), the GRASE Center, and Haverford Undocu+ Group.
Community comment was offered by Bi-Co Mutual Aid, calling for donations, Students for Reproductive Health, discussing their ongoing survey to address period-poverty, and the GRASE Center, announcing the opening of GIFT (Gender Inclusive Fashion Treasury) and the return of Drag Ball. The Rules of Order passed without difficulty, and attention was turned to the resolutions.
Resolution 1: A Clear and Concise Constitution
The first resolution presented to the community proposed the adoption of a revised Students’ Association Constitution, designed to reduce contradiction and confusion within a document that, according to member of the Constitution Committee, Yasmin Silva Nilsson ’26, has become a “hodge-podge of hundreds of constitutional amendments.” Writing the resolution involved cutting an 86-page document down to only 34 pages, in addition to making formatting changes intended to improve readability and comprehension.
In response to questions about which clauses would supersede the other, redundant versions in cases of contradiction, Students’ Council Co-Vice President and Chair of the Constitution Committee, Grant DeVries ’26, clarified that in this limited number of cases, whichever selection best aligned with “current existing practice” was codified in the new document. Following a single pro given during the Pro-Con presentation, the resolution was passed easily with a two-thirds majority by informal vote.
In a post-plenary interview with the Bi-Co News, DeVries expressed hope that the shortened constitution will resolve confusion about Students’ Council’s responsibilities and community impact and begin to regain the support of the student body for the council.
Resolution 2: SEPTA UPass Resolution
Brought forward by Daniel Bhatti ‘25 and Santiago Melendez ‘27 of the SEPTA Youth Advisory Council, the second resolution addressed a long-standing subject of debate: the purchase of SEPTA UPass for the Haverford community. As noted by the presenters, Haverford is the only remaining school in the Tri-College Consortium to not offer this program to its students, with Swarthmore implementing the initiative in August 2023, followed by Bryn Mawr at the beginning of the most recent fall semester.
The resolution dictates that UPass would be provided to students at the cost of 60 dollars per student per semester, which would be charged as a transportation fee, and students would have to purchase a SEPTA Key® Card for the price of $4.95, which would allow them to utilize the program. The college maintains the ability to not renew the contract with SEPTA if ridership is consistently low. The Q&A portion featured questions primarily focused on the cost of the program. In response to an inquiry into whether the expense would be covered by financial aid, Bhatti stated “In short, this would not be covered by financial aid. They calculate expected family contributions and funds according to that. The fee itself will not be covered by financial aid.” The answer created a high degree of confusion and agitation among students, leading many to believe that the acceptance of this resolution would result in a direct, 60 dollar per semester hike in the total cost of attendance for all students, regardless of aid status.
This lack of clarity sparked debate during the Pro-Con Presentation, featuring four speakers from each side of the argument. Speakers for the resolution highlighted potential savings on transportation to and from the Philadelphia International Airport and the accessibility to opportunities such as student teaching. Community Outreach Multicultural Liaison (COML) and incoming Students’ Council Co-Treasurer, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, offered the testimony of a former prospective student who was told by a Swarthmore College tour guide that one difference between Haverford and Swarthmore is that the former does not offer its students free public transportation and the latter does — and that this contributed to the student’s decision not to attend Haverford. According to Perez-Flesler, this anecdote demonstrates that the lack of the UPass program “tangibly harms the standing of this college among its peers.”
Speakers against the resolution focused on concerns over low ridership and how the price point would impact Chesick Scholars and students on financial aid. Maša Kilibarda ’26, offered her perspective as a Chesick Scholar, stating “this would actively harm [low income students],” and citing the understanding that the cost for the program would have to be paid “out of pocket.” Following the Pro-Con Debate, Bhatti clarified that it would not be possible for individual students to opt out of the program, as it is structured for campuses as a whole.
This section was followed by a brief break, during which the student body broke into discussion amongst itself, and confusion surrounding the question of financial aid emerged in full force.
After a moment of silence, informal voting began, and it was determined by the Elections Coordinators, Conner McWhan ‘27 and Julia Knihs ’25, that the resolution had passed with more than 50% of the votes from all those present. This immediately garnered an objection by Zoom, which was then echoed by over seven other individuals in the GIAC, exceeding the required eight to force electronic voting. Per the rules of order, the purpose of the objection process is to “dissent as to the adjudication of the vote,” however, statements from objectors reacting to the content of the resolution called into question the degree to which these objections rose from the approved procedural causes.
One such statement came from Eustace Ubah ’27, who said “I feel like this shouldn’t be approved as it is not fair to put this on everyone. So many people already pay for all this stuff. It shouldn’t be allowed for a bunch of rich kids to all vote yes and then we all have to give it.”
Electronic voting began, but problems with Wi-Fi slowed the process severely, resulting in an extended break where students milled about, listening to Chappell Roan over the loudspeaker and stopping by the snack table. During this time, Perez-Flesler and others approached the resolution writers, attempting to clarify confusion over how the cost of the program would be transferred to students. In this exchange, Bhatti and Perez-Flesler came to the understanding that this transportation fee would not impact the estimated family contribution (EFC) of a student on financial aid, and therefore, would not directly raise the cost of attendance by 60 dollars per semester for most of these students.
Technical issues with the form prolonged the break, and tensions ran high as Bhatti and Perez-Flesler realized there would not be another opportunity for Bhatti and Melendez to clarify the new understanding surrounding financial aid by addressing the student body before the vote was finalized. Several students took it upon themselves to shout this new information to the room at large, in lieu of formal address.
Around 4:10 p.m., Co-President Victoria Haber announced that the election had reached quorum, and the resolution had failed to gain a simple majority of the votes; this announcement resulted in a rush of students to the microphone where objections had taken place before, presumably with the intent to challenge the validity of the election. Due to technical issues, many students were not able to cast their votes. The chaotic proceedings were cut through by Co-President Yehyun Song informing the community that objections are not a part of the formal voting process, and calling for all students to return to their seats.
At 4:21 p.m., Haber clarified that “voting does not end after we reach quorum,” that they would continue counting votes until 4:25 p.m., and instructed students who had trouble casting electronic ballots to approach the table to have their votes recorded manually. From 4:25 p.m. to 4:31 p.m. there was another break to allow Students’ Council to count votes.
At 4:31 p.m., just as the results were about to be announced, quorum was lost. Quorum was regained only a minute later, and the results – 51.30% in favor of the resolution – were released.
The resolution passed, albeit by a razor thin margin, and was greeted with moderately loud applause from the crowd — although it was unclear whether this was from enthusiasm for the program or relief that the tumultuous process had concluded. Haber drew the proceedings of the second resolution to a close with “On behalf of StuCo, I apologize for the chaos. I want to thank you for engaging with us. Thank you for bearing with us.”
After plenary had concluded, the Co-Presidents told the Bi-Co News that they felt the frustration from students about the voting process was entirely valid, but that their hands were tied by the Rules of Order. Song said that as a private citizen, he would have loved to clarify the content of the resolution, but platforming one resolution over another by giving some presenters more time would have been a biased act. “We had to balance [with that urge to clarify] the legitimacy of the plenary process,” he said.
Ultimately, both Song and Haber were glad that students were engaging with the process so energetically, with “spirit and passion.” They mentioned that if students wanted to discuss the event further, Students’ Council general meetings on Sundays are always open to the community.
Further, Song emphasized that the plenary packet is sent out before the event so that students have the time to consider their responses to the resolutions and propose friendly or unfriendly amendments to the writers. “Looking back, I would love for the student body to utilize some of the procedures that we do have, such as the amendment process. And please always ask questions.”
One of the concerns introduced by Ubah and other students’ murmurings during the period between voting stages was whether it should be constitutional for a resolution concerning tuition to be able to be passed with only a 50% majority.
“I think that is a great question, but I don’t think students need to be too worried … in the sense that I don’t think that’s what was happening. I don’t think students were, by a 51% majority, saying ‘all right, tuition is now going up.’ … The point, for us, is for students to be in a space where their opinions are heard and recorded.” Haber explained further that because President Raymond is invited to plenary, she is able to witness the debate and the vote. “If she’s seeing that there are enough students saying that this isn’t a good idea, that’s something she’ll account for.”
Song added that plenary is only one phase of the resolution process, and that the Co-Presidents continue to meet with President Raymond following the event. “If you would like [the voices of those who disagreed with the resolution] to be heard, please utilize us as a resource,” he said. In regards to the question of ethics around a 50% majority vote, he agreed that it was “a question which must be asked,” but which exceeded the scope of the UPass resolution. “That could be a resolution in itself,” he added.
Resolution 3: Reallocate and Raise the Nest Food Pantry’s Funds
The third resolution on the docket advocated for the creation of a Task Force dedicated to finding a sustainable source of funding for the Nest Food Pantry outside of the Student Activity Fund, for the purpose of increasing the resources available to students who utilize the Nest. Currently, the Nest receives 30,000 dollars per semester from Students’ Council, but due to the rise in wages for student workers – kickstarted by a plenary resolution passed last spring – the funds allocated for food and infrastructure was partially depleted.
This resolution was presented by the Co-Managers of the Nest, Heewon Yang ‘25 and Keyla Ramirez ‘25, who outlined issues with the current budget. These include concerns with year-round operations, as Students’ Council’s funds are only available during the school year, only having the funds to offer Liftfar eligible students one five-dollar purchase per week, which they would like to see increased to one ten-dollar purchase, and limitations around budget increases which prevent them from upgrading their appliances and furnishment. Yang highlighted in the Q&A portion that these concerns have caused the Nest to source eight thousand dollars’ worth of outside funding.
Quorum was briefly lost during the Q&A portion, but quickly regained, and the discussion proceeded to Pro-Con Presentations. Speakers praised the resolution’s commitment to student agency and the necessity of the Nest for low-income students and Chesick Scholars. No speakers presented any opposition, except to say that this initiative “didn’t happen sooner.” Yang and Ramirez used their response time to encourage students who feel they may be eligible for the Nest’s services to reach out to have their case reviewed. The resolution passed at 4:54 p.m. with the vast majority of student support.
Following plenary, Yang and Ramirez spoke with the Bi-Co News on their success. “I was very warmed by all of the support that was shown,” Yang said. “Keyla and I were really expecting a lot of questions, especially from non-Liftfar students, because we know that the Nest is not really well-known among students who don’t use it.” The presenters anticipated questions about where the money would come from, and how it would impact the StuCo budget, but did not see any “serious concern or opposition” from the community. Despite receiving no financial questions, Yang and Ramirez had the answers ready, sharing with the Bi-Co News that they’ve been in conversation with the Chesick Office and the Dean’s Office about how to source funding. Three avenues of potential action right now include tapping an endowment fund reserved for food justice activity on campus, beginning a fundraising initiative akin to those the athletics teams run, and reaching out to alums.
Yang added that she knows there are some students who are not counted as Liftfar eligible due to their family’s expected financial contribution, but deal with food insecurity because of other circumstances like family estrangement. “We want to let the entire campus know that we are very willing to help anyone who believes that they could benefit from the resources of the Nest … even beyond the Liftfar community.”
Resolution 4: Implementation of Post-9/11 GI Benefits as commitment to equitable collegiate access
Presented by Anna Keneally ’26, this resolution proposed a change in Haverford College’s financial aid policy surrounding education benefits provided by the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The current policy treats the money offered by the bill – up to $28,937.09 for education allocated to veterans or the descendants of veterans who served after September 11, 2001 – as any other outside scholarship. Under this policy, five hundred dollars is accepted without deduction; any amount over this prompts a dollar-for-dollar reduction from financial aid provided by the Haverford Grant. Keneally argued that this approach furthers the perpetuation of “a cycle of inaccessible education for service members and their families.”
The content of this resolution has been considered by Keneally for several years, having been brought up with administration as early as 2022. Keneally is the daughter of a veteran of the Iraq war, who, while not personally a recipient of financial aid and therefore would not directly benefit from the implementation of the resolution, cares deeply about the potential impact of these benefits on her fellow students. She highlighted that 49 students across Swarthmore and Bryn Mawr use GI benefits, in contrast to Haverford’s mere five.
The Q&A portion featured one question from Maxwell Champlin ‘25, asking how the acceptance of these benefits could jeopardize the pacifist Quaker character of Haverford College. “In the past we have not accepted certain military programs during wars” he noted, citing the college’s refusal to welcome combat training programs during WWII. Keneally pushed back, stating “I think the greatest tool we have against unnecessary militarization is education.”
The agenda then turned to a heated session of Pro-Con Debate, with pros focusing on breaking the cycle of poverty and increasing access to education.
Ben Fligelman ’26 offered a controversial con, saying “This resolution claims to support equity when in reality it does anything but. Currently, Haverford maintains a clear policy for financial aid provided by the federal government: for every dollar you receive, Haverford subtracts a dollar from your financial aid. The goal of this policy is simple. When Haverford assesses financial aid, they want to make sure a student gets the funds they need. For instance: if a student needs 50,000 dollars in financial aid per year but receives a federal grant totaling 30,000 dollars per year, the college only has to provide the remaining 20,000 dollars. However, this resolution would require that the college still provides the full amount of financial aid alongside whatever is provided by the federal government. As a result, this resolution will privilege some students over others for what is, essentially, an accident of birth. I urge you to vote against this resolution. Thank you.”
These comments elicited unease and boos from the crowd. Kenneally responded firmly: “Ben Fligelman, I respect you a lot … but referring to it as a ‘circumstance of birth’ is inherently racist and also disregards financial situations that people have been put in. No one really enlists in the military because they really truly believe that they want to go and do these atrocities overseas; it’s mostly because of circumstance and getting out of entrenched poverty.” Her statement was met with loud applause.
Other cons fell along similar lines, drawing objections to uneven allotment of financial aid and the appearance that acceptance would indicate support for the military. Nathan Schecter ’25 argued that the resolution would “make it more beneficial for people to join the military in the future, effectively creating a private defense fund.”
Despite the lively debate, no friendly or unfriendly amendments were proposed, and the resolution passed with over 50% of the vote.
In a post-plenary interview, Keneally acknowledged the validity of Fligelman and Schecter’s arguments that being anti-war means being anti-military. She noted that she is “not staunchly pro-military in any regard,” but further clarified that she still doesn’t “think that people should be punished for having no other option.”
Taylor Allert ‘28, who spoke in support of the resolution, agreed. As a Chapter 35 recipient, her response to the resolution was personal. She told the Bi-Co News, “I think what really started getting to me is how people were so negatively talking about the military and, like, that issue with violence and the Quaker values … just because the school [has] Quaker values doesn’t mean that supporting military kids is supporting militarization. I started getting really emotional and shaky because it’s something that’s super personal to me, and like I had said, um, when I stood up, like without the VA benefits, like, I would not be able to be here right now. And I don’t think it should be seen as like, oh, military kids are getting special treatment. It’s needed like it’s based on need.
Much of the pushback to Keneally’s resolution was based on the notion that one outside scholarship being accepted over others would lead to inequity among the groups who receive any form of outside aid. In conversation with the Bi-College News, Jesse Lytle, Haverford’s Chief of Staff, noted that Haverford treats outside scholarships the way they do because they do not have the funds to treat all scholarships equally in the FAFSA process. If the college did not account for students’ GI benefits as part of their expected contribution to tuition, that would in fact mean less financial aid could be allocated to other applicants in similar circumstances. As such, they choose to work with the need-based financial aid calculations in place to ensure that applicants’ expected contribution is as close to the amount they can feasibly contribute to tuition as possible. Of course, that calculation cannot always account for a family’s unique circumstances, and other institutions like Swarthmore and Bryn Mawr have the financial breadth to accept outside scholarships alongside financial aid. Haverford’s endowment simply does not support the financial strain. Accordingly, at a Wawa with Wendy event following Plenary, President Wendy Raymond implied in conversation with students that the decision to accept or veto the resolution would be a difficult one due to budgetary concerns.
Fligelman later spoke with the News, and clarified that his comment was based on the understanding that to accept GI benefits would be synonymous with the college having to pay greater amounts of financial aid to military families, effectively drawing more from the pool of financial aid funding to pay for those students’ tuition. This is true. The situation is nuanced by the college’s need-aware (as opposed to need-blind) status, and the fact that we cannot know quite how the change in policy would affect admissions demographics – there is absolutely no certainty that greater financial aid would be given to children of veterans who may not need it according to the college’s FAFSA calculations. Indeed, families like Allert’s, who initially could not comfortably afford Haverford’s tuition even with financial aid and Chapter 35 benefits, could have greater access to a college education.
However, the resolution would differentiate this particular form of outside aid from every other outside scholarship, and as such, single out military families as a particular group in the financial area of the admissions process.
Keneally spoke with the News about her hope that this resolution sparks conversation around other forms of outside financial aid, giving the example that if GI benefits and merit scholarships awarded for something like an essay-writing contest are treated the same way by admissions, she feels those should be differentiated more. “It is something I’m going to bring up in conversations [with administration] and I would love to hear feedback from the community if there’s any type of aid they feel like they’re being rejected from using.” She noted that she would welcome students’ comments through email or any other form of communication.
Resolution 5: Accountability Procedure for Honor Council Members
The final resolution of the day was offered by current members of Honor Council, calling for a new procedure to be incorporated into the Code to provide guidelines for violations of the Code made by sitting members of Honor Council. The writers sought to create accountability to the students who elected them, creating a procedure that would remove the accused member from all “ongoing mediations, circles, or panels” while their case is in process, and allow for current Honor Council members to be somewhat less rigorously involved in the determination of how their peers’ trial resolved. The full procedure can be found here.
One question was raised on Zoom regarding the protection of violators’ anonymity, to which presenters responded that “at some point, anonymity is hard to uphold.” There were two speakers, both pros, during the Pro-Con Debate portion. They commended the Honor Council for raising this point, and noted how valuable it was as a step toward holding people in power responsible for their actions. The resolution passed without complication, with a two-thirds majority.
Honor Code Ratification and the State of the Code
The annual vote to open the ratification of the Honor Code was preceded by the State of the Code address, given by Honor Council Co-Chairs, Luke Smithberg ’25, and Caroline Yao ’27.
Their speech was unusually somber, beginning with a reminder from Smithberg that, “the Honor Code represents the ways in which we as a community can live together, interact and learn from one another in ways that both protect personal freedoms and uphold community standards … [but] it can only help our community flourish if we all work together to uphold it and hold ourselves accountable.” He took the time to note that if anyone was on their phone, doing homework, or generally checked out, now would be the time to tune in. “What we’re about to tell you is important,” he said.
The Co-Heads spoke primarily about the “huge rise in academic dishonesty” on campus. She explained that part of the rise is due to a change in reporting policy enacted by a recent plenary resolution, which compels faculty to report all instances of academic dishonesty to the Council rather than dealing with the issues themselves. However, this is not the only reason for the significant uptick in reports. “We are noticing a clear culture shift in how we’re approaching our learning as a community,” Yao said. The two touched on the violation of trust between students and faculty which occurs when the Honor Code is not followed, and emphasized that worrying about a grade in relation to other students over personal growth is at odds with Haverford’s values.
All students present were asked to reflect on the freedoms the Honor Code affords them, and consider what it would mean for the Code to be rendered void by a disregard for the social contract it is built on. “This is a collective responsibility,” Smithberg said. “Put simply, the current levels of academic honesty we’re seeing at Haverford are not compatible with there being a future of the Honor Code. Either we change course, or it goes away.”
“We have known for a while that we needed to do some sort of wake-up call about this,” Smithberg told the Bi-Co News after plenary concluded. “We were initially going to [address] the student body in an email, but we realized we needed to do it today to get this level of engagement.” Yao added that email engagement is notoriously low, and that while she didn’t expect that the Honor Code wouldn’t be opened for ratification by vote, sending this message in the spring as students head into finals period was important.
Following their address and a meaningful moment of silence, the present student body voted to open the ratification process with well over the requisite 66 percent. Just under four and a half hours after the process began, students drifted out of the GIAC under a pleasant blue sky, heading to dinner for renewed energy after an involved and somewhat chaotic plenary. The future of the five passed resolutions now rests in the hands of President Wendy Raymond, but the fate of the Honor Code remains a weighty responsibility on the shoulders of every student.
Reflecting on the day, Haber and Song congratulated the community on their engagement. “People were very involved, and I really appreciated that. I think the community really showed up today, and that was something that we were especially worried about, just because it’s spring semester. We’re tired. We’re in a political context that is exhausting, and painful to think about, and so for people to have been here and been engaged, I think that was truly a great win,” Haber said. Song added that they had been concerned about reaching quorum, but were pleased by the rate at which it was reached and how quickly it was regained throughout the day.
This is Song’s final plenary at Haverford, and Haber’s final plenary as a Co-President. Thinking back to the summer before their tenure began, the two agreed that they had been worried about taking on leadership roles in a community filled with such tension and exhaustion following the protests of the spring semester in 2024 and confronting such drastic changes in the country’s political environment. “But here we are, no special plenary – in fact, I think out of all my years at Haverford, this has been the most engaging plenary I’ve seen, and I’m actually really happy with the direction that our student agency and student governance is heading towards. I really do hope that more and more students don’t take this as ‘oh this was so long and so bad’ but like … y’all we [passed] five resolutions that will really impact … the culture, the environment and the infrastructure of Haverford. That is powerful.’”
Correction: A previous version of this article stated that the SEPTA Upass resolution was presented by Daniel Braun ’27. In fact, it was presented by Daniel Bhatti ’25, alongside Santiago Melendez ’26. The Bi-Co News apologizes for this error.