By Charlie Lynn, Staff Editor
“Both Plenaries were bullshit. Quote this. Quote this. Quote this. Both plenaries were utter bullshit.”
That was the response of Students’ Council Co-president Maurice Rippel ‘19 when asked to comment on whether levels of student engagement had changed between fall 2018’s resolution-less 45 minute Plenary to this spring’s three and half hour affair, during which three resolutions passed and the Honor Code was opened for ratification.
Although it took nearly one hour to reach quorum, the Haverford student body gathered last Sunday afternoon in the Gardner Integrated Athletic Center (GIAC) to overwhelmingly approve the three resolutions. The first resolution proposed to lengthen the election period for Students’ Council, Honor Council, and the Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAPP), to allow for a week of campaigning. The resolution also proposed to decrease the level of quorum needed for certain elections and eliminate a quorum requirement for uncontested elections. The resolution also proposed a campaign spending budget of $600 to be divided up between all competing candidates, with the goal of increasing student body interest in elections.
There was some discussion as to how and if the money should be allocated, with some students questioning the need for the resolution. When taken to a vote the measure was approved overwhelming.
The second resolution asked the student body to encourage the college to work towards achieving carbon neutrality by 2035 instead of the 2060 date the college is currently using. It additionally proposed that all Students’ Council budgets be evaluated by the Committee for Environmental Responsibility (CER) to determine their carbon footprint. The first friendly amendment clarified the overall value statement and clarified the CER audit process. A second friendly amendment added language to recognize the connection between environmental justice and “capitalism and greed,” along with other issues connected to environmental degradation. Both friendly amendments passed.
An unfriendly amendment was presented that added language about light pollution and its relevance to the second resolution. It was passed as well.
The final resolution, motivated by concerns over institutional memory, proposed the creation of a Students’ Council Librarian with similar responsibilities to the current Honor Council Librarian. The Students’ Council Librarian will act in an advisory role and will allow for an easier transition between councils. They will be appointed by Students’ Council, must have one year experience on Council, and after a friendly amendment, will serve from January until December. The resolution was overwhelming approved.
Honor Council Co-Presidents Lourdes Taylor ‘21 and Daisy Zhan ‘20 then presented on the state of the Honor Code. They paid special attention to what they perceived to be the failures of the Code, despite the changes that were made during spring 2018’s Special Plenary.
Taylor and Zhan’s speech received a long response from an anonymous student through the online Ford Forum, which allows for anonymous comments to be read aloud by members of Students’ Council during plenary. The response denounced the Customs Program, safe spaces on campus, and described a perceived sentiment of marginalization from the student who described himself as white, heterosexuaul, and an athlete. The anonymous comment, which was so lengthy it was not read in its entirety by Rippel, prompted an impassioned response from Taylor who held up the student’s comment as evidence of the necessity of safe spaces on campus. The Honor Code was then opened for ratification and Plenary finished around 6:00 p.m.
Last fall, improved snacks and free t-shirts were used to entice students to both attend plenary and be more involved in the event. However, Students’ Council Co-President Andrew Eaddy ‘19 said that despite their efforts, “It seemed like people didn’t take the time to think about it. It seemed like people were more excited to get out of plenary as quickly as possible.”
To combat this lack of interest, Rippel and Eaddy sent out an email a couple days before this year’s plenary asking for students to take responsibility in fostering a more engaged space.
Headphones, laptops, and doing homework were strongly discouraged and students were reminded that Students’ Council expects, “Plenary attendants to stay engaged with the conversations during Plenary.”
Despite the ambitions of Eaddy and Rippel, there were no noticeable changes to the number of students doing homework or listening to music during the event. Even the typical “moments of silence” were interrupted by the hushed voices of numerous students in conversation with one another.
While pizza was promised in emails to the student body, there was a notable absence of pizza during the majority of the afternoon. Some students used the Ford Forum to complain about the pizza’s less-than-timely appearance. Pizza did not arrive in the GIAC until after the Honor Code had been opened for ratification and Plenary had concluded. According to sources on Students’ Council, the delay occurred after organizers failed to preorder the pizzas days in advance of the event. Instead, the pizzas weren’t ordered until an hour into plenary itself.
The layout of the GIAC was also new this year. Instead of placing the representatives of Students’ Council towards the back of the GIAC, and using both sets of bleachers for students, Students’ Council were shifted to left side of the gym. Rows of folding chairs were set up along the back and front of the GIAC in order to create more of a circle. Tables which had been used in the past were removed and students were encouraged to bring couches and pillows to sit on the floor. According to Students’ Council, part of the decision was based on continual complaints about the acoustics in the GIAC and the desire for the layout to resemble a Quaker-style meeting.
Some students saw Sunday’s events as a return to normality after the noticeably short event in the fall in which a Students’ Council proposal opportunity to discuss critical issues at the college was resoundingly rejected by the student body. This Spring’s plenary however, was typical both in length, the number of students who chose to speak, and the type of resolutions that were presented.
Although Disappointed by what they perceive to be a lack of real engagement from the student body, both Eaddy and Rippel expressed hopes that fundamental changes will come to plenary.
Rippel said, “It’s too bureaucratic. It’s too procedural. We need to think critically about how this system works for our student body. We need to think about how we are working on issues at Plenary, rather than arguing about ridiculous word changes.”
Eaddy echoed those remarks, “This is not what I want to keep doing. I don’t want to keep having plenaries like this. If this is what plenary will be, I want to stop. I don’t want to keep doing this. I think it’s a waste of time. People don’t care. It’s pretty sad.”
Both Co-presidents say they are disappointed about what they see as a lack of engagement by the student body. Part of the issue, they argue, is that the resolutions and issues discussed at Plenary have little relevance to the student body.
“Most of the things people are voting for in Plenary don’t really impact them, such as adding a portion to student government, or changing election procedures. It impacts them, yes, but they aren’t the people that are working with it. And so as a result, it is hard for them to be fully engaged in the space,” said Rippel.
Rippel and Eaddy both criticized the student body for not using Plenary for the kind of discussions that are relevant to the entire student body. Plenary, they believe, is a wasted opportunity to discuss issues of real importance in the community.
“This is the last Plenary. Mark my words. I hope this is the last Plenary in this way,” said Rippel.
