Spring 2018 Special Plenary Agenda

Spring 2018 Special Plenary Agenda

 

Quorum reached @ 5:32

    1. Moment of Silence
    2. Welcome from SC and HC Co-Presidents
    3. Overview of Agenda and Rules of Order
      1. Read over Rules of Order and Agenda (2 Minutes)
      2. Questions (2 Minutes)
        1. Charles Walker 20’: You can’t reverse an amendment, but can you alter it? We want to strike a specific section of the Friendly Amendment. Would reversing part of an amendment fall under a full reversal?
          1. . Saumya: You can do that.
        2. Trevor Larner ‘19 & Riley Wheaton ‘20: We want more time to discuss the honor code before the Q/A period. We want to have 5 minutes to reflect. We want to double Pro/Con Debate to 20 minutes.
          1. Saumya: Opens up voting.
            1. Amendment passes.
        3. Chris Bechen ‘18: I would like to move the ratification to honor code after the voting of all resolutions.
          1. Julia: Opens up voting. ⅔ is not clear, move to paper vote.
            1. This amendment needed ⅔ to pass and it did not get ⅔. The amendment will not pass.
        4. Justin Marshall ‘18: Do you need ½ or ⅔ of the student body in order for a resolution to be passed?
          1. Arlene Casey: ⅔
        5. Charles Walker ‘20: We allow signatures to be presented before the formal voting of the amendment.
          1. Saumya: All those in favor please raise packets.
            1. Amendment passes.
      3. Vote on Agenda and Rules of Order (Requires ⅔ majority)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Agenda and Rules of Order passes.
    4. Resolution #1: Plenary Scheduling
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes)
        1. Presented by Brett Hungar ‘21 & Devi Namboodiri ‘21
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Andrew Schalfoun ‘18: How will we distinguish between significant cultural/religious events, given that almost every day of the year is a saints day? What is the mechanism for that?
          1. Response: It is intentionally vague. It is what the students and the student body considers significant. The Co-Presidents would reach out to the students to see what they see as important. After announcing the date, the presidents also would reach out and see if the students have conflicts. It is less about signfiicance, and more about how much of the school would be participating in it.
        2. Anton Kienzele ‘19: Is there a reason the date has been moved later?
        3. Isabelle Floyd ‘20: Why not just create a running list of important events instead of every year going back and forth and checking in?
          1. Response: We wanted to make it more of a conversation. We want to adapt to the makeup of the student body each year.
        4. Emily Chazen ‘18 (anonymous question): They are wondering if this is enough time to get proper feedback?
          1. Response: It would be enough time because the student body would have 72 hours to check for conflicts.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Pro: Mary Cate Cavanagh ‘18: I have been fortunate to have never had a conflict with Plenary. I think it is very important because it allows us to fully recognize different cultures on this campus.
        2. Pro: Coro Harris ‘19: How are you going to ensure that events which are culturally significant to a minority aren’t overshadowed by events of the majority?
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Brett/Devi: In response to the question, that is one of the biggest reasons we planned this resolutions–we want the Co-Presidents to see all students’ conflicts as legitimate.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)
          1. Ceci Silberstein ‘19: To add at the end of the resolution, text regarding sending the student body a message that explains their considerations.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
          1. Anna Saum ‘18: Would this list be of all the holidays that SC has considered or just the ones that fall on the chosen date?
            1. Response: It would be all of the ones that were considered.
          2. Anna Mehta ‘18: Are you worried at all that releasing this list would make certain cultural groups a target of people’s frustrations about the schedule of plenary?
            1. Response:  Student Council would do their best to minimize this problem.
        3. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
        4. Vote on Friendly Amendment
          1. Julia: Opens voting to amendment.
            1. Amendment passes.
      6. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Unfriendly Amendments (2 minutes)
          1. No unfriendly amendments.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
        3. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
        4. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment
      7. Moment of Silence
      8. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Amendment passes.
    5. Resolution #2: Confrontation Overview of Agenda and Rules of Order
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes)
        1. Presented by Emily Chazen ‘18, Devin Louis, and Daisy Zhan ‘20 with the Special Plenary Committee
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Eli Philips ‘19:  I’m wondering why you made the change to the first part?
          1. Response: Emily Chazen: We can change this.
        2. Chris Bechen ‘18: Why was the HCO position specifically included?
          1. Response: Daisy Zhan
        3. Joshua Hilcher ‘18: A lot of the language makes me feel like it’s moving from an individual act to something like a group confrontation. How do you view confrontation
          1. Response: Emily: It is not supposed to be a group confrontation.
        4. Jesse Friedson ‘21: Can you elaborate on the active bystander clause?
          1. Response: Daisy
        5. Daniel Van Beren ‘20: It seems as though this allows people to confront without being face to face, is this accurate?
          1. Response: The point of this resolution, is to always have someone as a confronting party, but it can be an active bystander.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Pro: James Jackson ‘20: As a white male, I always want to learn. I think this is a good way to address these issues.
        2. Pro: Justin Marshall ‘18: I am in favor of this resolution, I want to recognize that when the committee wrote this resolution they also had in mind changing the word confrontation to the word engagement. Even if we don’t have the right word now, I think there are a lot of valid concerns with the word confrontation. Moving forward, I hope we can be open to thinking about other ways to other ways to changing the honor code with better vocabulary.
        3. Leslie Luqueño ‘20: Anonymous Question: How can this become not like cyber bullying? How do to ensure people are held accountable for their words?
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Alex Stern ‘20: In response to electronic communication, the overlays between the social code and code of conduct in confrontation already applies to social media. We are clarifying this in a later resolution.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)

 

  • Alex : I would propose to strike a line because I think we need to change the language so that it suggests that there are non trivial relationships and we still want to encourage confrontation.

 

        1. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

        1. Pro: Anna Saum ‘18: I really like this amendment because I think even if something is perceived to be small, it matters.
      1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Amendment passes.
    1. Presentation of Friendly Amendments Continued (2 minutes)
        1. Rachel Romans ‘18: To add the word direct on the clause about private online direct messaging.
      1. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
      2. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
      3. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment
        1. Saumya: Opens Voting.
          1. Amendment passes.
      4. Unfriendly Amendments Continued…
        1. Alex Stern ‘20: Add language “when possible” to phrase in order to ensure that.
      5. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
        1. Ana Saum ‘18: When do you determine when it is possible?
          1. Response: It would be up to the discretion of the two parties involved.
      6. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
      7. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment
        1. Julia: Opens voting.
          1. Amendment passes.
      8. Friendly Amendments Continued…
        1. Chris Bechen & Leslie Luqueño: We want to change the language from HCO to include all customs team members because we are all trained. We don’t believe the burden should rely solely on one person.
      9. Pro-Con Debate
        1. Laura Seaburg ‘20: I am in favor because I think that it helps first-years.
        2. Xiangruo Dai ‘21: I support this because I think that everyone on the customs team is responsible for helping first-years
      10. Vote on Friendly Amendment:
        1. Saumya: Opens voting
          1. Amendment passes.
    2. Call for Unfriendly Amendment I (5 minutes)
      1. Jesse Friedson ‘21: I would like to change the language on page eight.
        1. Not enough signatures.
    3. Moment of Silence
    4. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
      1. Saumya: Opens voting.
        1. Resolution passes.

 

  1. Resolution #3: Social Code
    1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes)
      1. Presented by Trevor Larner ‘20, Eyasu Shumie, and Henae Togami from Special Plenary Committee
    2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
      1. Gavriel Kleinwaks ‘18: What do you mean by the word safe and how would you judge that?
        1. Response: Our goal is to protect all students and the safety of the community as a whole.
      2. Anonymous Question: Can you explain the decision to include political ideology for things I can be discriminated against?
        1. Response: Political ideology is used to enact different isms and is different than other identities because you aren’t born with it and it can change over time.
      3. Sam Lowenstein ‘20: What is the difference between political ideology and religion because both are choices?
        1. Response: Religious identity is deeply invested in humanity and experiences vs how one comes to political ideology.
    3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
      1. Pro: Alex Gutierrez ‘20: Appeal to community about how political ideology is under threat by large campus movement. The social code gives us tools to correct it.
      2. Con: Vaughn Papenhausen ‘18: Political ideology is similar to religion. You are born into it just as much as religion.
      3. Pro: Joshua Hilcher ‘18: I love the inclusion of protecting staff.
      4. Pro: Eliana Von Krusenstiern ‘18: We need more think to protect marginalized group and political ideology is not the same as a marginalized identity.
      5. Pro: James Jackson ‘20: Political ideology is used as a tool of oppression.
      6. Con: Justin Moses ‘20: I too have been quite ostracized due to my beliefs. I am a conservative and I have had people refuse to associate with me. The idea that political beliefs on this campus matter less than others because the idea that other marginalized ideas are to feel worse is not true.
      7. Con: Mary Cavanaugh ‘18: Racism, homophobia, sexism are more problematic but we need to recognize political ideology oppression does happen.
      8. Con: Ethan Wise ‘21: The HC presently forbids discrimination based on political ideology along with race, gender, etc.
      9. Pro: Julian Robinson ‘20 & Gaynor Norcott ‘20: This is holding responsibility for students to make themselves more aware of their privileges.
      10. Pro: Jack Hendon ‘21: The HC is not meant to protect points of view but other people.
      11. Con: Joseph Staruski ‘20: Political differences can exist within the same value system–cites instances of when people are discriminated by political ideologies.
      12. Con: Sam Lowenstein ‘20: Evidence that there is political discrimination on campus.
      13. Middle: Gavriel Kleimwaks ‘18: Encouraging students to be charitable toward each other.
      14. Pro: Aarushi Mahn ‘20: It is disrespectful to equate the experiences of marginalized students to social standing.

 

      1. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Trevor Larner: first off, we are not trying to discriminate against political ideologies we just want respectful discussions. To the people that spoke, we want you to think about your privileges
      2. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment I (2 Minutes): Evan Moon ‘21, Shayan Xia, Flan Ruthainetapot
          1. Changing discrimination against accent or dialect to “accent, dialect, or usage of English language.”
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

        1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
          1. Julia: Opens voting.
            1. Amendment passes.
        2. Presentation of Friendly Amendment II (2 Minutes): Alex Kane ‘21, Emily Provine ‘21
          1. Discusses the new paragraph about shared spaces. We are proposing to remove that paragraph and replace with new sentence about respect for shared spaces that makes it less of a list of rules and more connected to values of community and respect.
        3. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
          1. Joshua Hilscher ‘18: Why are they moving the phrase about cleaning up?
            1. Response: I agree. The amendment we are proposing comes immediately after the line in the resolution in relation to faculty/staff. This is meant to show respective.
          2. Max Aifer ‘19: In response to this question, I used to work in the dining center and it was my job to clean up tables. It’s not disrespectful to leave a mess.

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

          1. Con: Hanna Yoon ‘18: Just because I get paid to do my job, does not mean you get to leave an extra mess. Also, it is not necessary to make the clause any more general/ambiguous. The list is clear.
          2. Con: Aton Kentizel ‘19: Shifting the attention from explicit to implicit and shifting the emphasis towards the spaces which is unhelpful.
          3. Con: Joshua Hilscher ‘18 :I would like one sentence to remain that has been removed.
        1. Vote on Friendly Amendment II
          1. Saumya: Opens Voting.
            1. Amendment fails.
        2. Presentation of Friendly Amendment III (2 Minutes) Special Plenary Committee
          1. Change the wording of cultural appropriation to cultural insensitivity. Students must be respectful in confrontations. We should strive for equality at Haverford.
        3. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

          1. Pro: Victoria Merino ‘20 & Noorie: In favor of altering the social code as the community changes and grows.
          2. Pro: Esme Trontz ‘18: We are talking about the environment of our campus, not the world.
        1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
          1. Julia: Opens voting
            1. Amendment passes.
      1. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Unfriendly Amendment I (2 minutes) Charles Walker ‘20
          1. Striking the majority of the previous friendly amendment, but keeping the earlier parts of the amendment stricken, stricken.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
        3. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
          1. Middle: Laura Seiberg ‘20: 3b introduces the phrase community standards, and this is not well defined.
          2. Pro: Sam Lowenstein ‘20: It is a deconstruction of the term liberalism and the term privilege.
          3. Pro: Elena Marcovici ‘21: Vital to have strong opposition for liberal ideology.
          4. Pro: Joseph Weisberg ‘21: I believe in free political discourse.
          5. Pro: Stephanie Wydzowsk ‘19: It doesn’t place it in the same clause as race, gender, identities. Political ideology is not enforced the same way as other identities. This still allows race, gender, sexual orientation to be important.
          6. Con: Sadie Kenyon-Dean ‘20 : Listen to people who are harmed by a political ideology. To compare outing someone as a conservative versus as a gay woman to your family is not the same. It should not be up to marginalized people to educate.
          7. Pro: Vaidehi Agarwalla ‘19: Political ideologies aren’t just about American, they are international.
          8. Con: Ceci Silberstein ‘19: Political ideologies are completely detrimental to people.
          9. Con: Jill Zimmerman ‘20: I don’t think political ideology is enough of an issue for a separate amendment.
          10. Con: Skylar Elenberg ‘18: It is important for us to recognize that respect of political beliefs is protected under amendment passed.
        4. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment
          1. Saumya: Voting opens.
            1. Amendment fails.
      2. Moment of Silence
      3. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Resolution passed.
    1. Resolution #4: Academic Code
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes) Trevor Larner, Soha Saghir, and Hanae Togami with SPC
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Daniel Van Berveren ‘20: To what extent has this been checked with faculty? Can we ensure its proper implementation?
          1. Response: We spoke in a faculty meaning and checked to ensure ths would not be a problem.
        2. Gavriel Kleinwaks ‘18: Who determines who is coming from a position of power? Also, why incorporate the social honor code into the academic honor code?
          1. Response: As a community, we have a better understanding of who has power and who does not. You have to recognize the space you take up in classrooms.
        3. Mac Lyle ‘20: : Why the word requires? Wouldn’t encourages be better suited?
          1. Response: Students are required by the academic code.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Con: Daniel Van Beverin ‘20: Difficulties in getting the academic honor code to professors when they have no power in crafting it?
        2. Pro: Gaynor Norcott ‘20:  I think this creates an important structure to hold faculty/staff accountable.
        3. Pro: Daniel Feshbach ‘20: Strikes a good balance.
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Response: Faculty don’t sign the code, this amendment is to help hold faculty to some standards. Faculty have consented to these changes.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)
          1. Changing the language–you can’t make faculty members oblige but you can encourage them. Also, changing the language to make it more consistent with encourage verses requiring confrontation.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

        1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
          1. Saumya: Opens voting.
            1. Amendment passes.
      1. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Unfriendly Amendments (2 minutes)
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
        3. Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)
        4. Vote on Unfriendly Amendment
      2. Moment of Silence
      3. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Resolution passes.  
    1. Resolution #5: Changes to Quorum
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes) Presented by Devin Louis and Kevin Liao Special Plenary Committee
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Eli Phelps ‘19: How many bodies in this room versus how many are actually engaging? Could larger numbers actually harm marginalized students by increasing the majority?
          1. Response: This would ensure more voices and more people hearing things being said.
        2. Mary Cate Cavanaugh ‘18: How do you you know 66% will accurate do what you are hoping?
          1. Response: We want to be accommodating.
        3. Isabel Floyd ‘20: Is having more people in the space good, even if they aren’t actively participating?
          1. Response: The decision of going is a choice. By raising quorum, if it cannot be met we need to reevaluate why that is happening.
        4. Reilly Milbun ‘19: Is there any thought about how this would affect special plenary?
          1. Response: Today is a good example that we can have this kind of engagement.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Anton Kentizel ‘19: Con: The last two plenaries we have not had enough engagement, yes we have engagement here. But, there is a difference between getting this kind of engagement once every 8 years and twice a year.
        2. Isabel Floyd ‘20: Pro: I disagree with idea that this is fundamentally different than other plenaries. If we can show up for this we can show up for others.
        3. Caroline Steliotes ‘19 Pro: The last two plenaries have shown us that people do care, and people aren’t showing up because of unique circumstances.
        4. Matthew Soulanile ‘19: Pro: This can force ourselves to reflect on why we may not have much engagement.
        5. Sarah Daq Pro: I like the accessibility of language.
        6. James Jackson ‘20: Pro: If you are at Haverford only for an education than why are you here?
        7. Kymon Harrington ‘20: Having more people here is a better reflection of our community and its values.
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Since of aspiration in the community. The fact that we are in a space where we all have this common sense of trust and identity that the honor code gives us, tells me that we have something special. We aspire to be better. Setting a high standard is not bad.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)
          1. No friendly amendments.
      6. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
          1. No unfriendly amendments.
      7. Moment of Silence
      8. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Resolution passes.
    2. Resolution #6: Day of Community Reflection
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes) Emily Chazen and Alex Stern with SPC
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Sarah Curtis ‘20:Why do you want community service off campus to be a part of it?
          1. Response: We want to extend community service to acknowledge that we are a part of a greater community.
        2. Gabe Braun ‘19: Where is the funding for this coming from?
          1. Response: Student’s Council
        3. What happens if it falls on MLK Day?
          1. Response: According to next three years that would not happen. It is intentionally ambiguous in case this happens.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Con: Leah Budson ‘19 and Sophie McGlynn ‘18: We had concerns after having worked on this resolution in the past plenary. This resolution failed before because we did not consult with staff. Also, this day falls on the last day before classes in the Spring semester, being asked to give up an extra day of the time I get to spend with my family is a big deal. We also have concerns because we tried this a few years back and a few students attended. We also feel that the people who will show up will be the students already having these conversations and performing emotional labor.
        2. Con: Oliver Maupin ‘18: I am concerned with how members of the community are chosen.
        3. Pro: Caroline Steliotes ‘19: I think it will be an important day and it is an important first step in aspiring toward community engagement. It also creates a space for faculty, staff, and students to interact which rarely happens.
        4. Con: Stephanie Widzowski ‘19: If we don’t put it on a day of class, how do you encourage faculty/staff to come in during a day of paid vacation?
        5. Pro: Isabel Floyd ‘20: In response to last comment, I think that the faculty do enjoy their work here and really care. I think we would get a large number of faculty/staff participation.
        6. Con: Sarah Cutis’ 20: I am worried about the community service aspect.
        7. Pro: Ethan Lyne ‘19: If you put even 100 people to work for a day it can be transforming for an organization.
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. Response: The MLK Day actually was attended in its first two iterations. In regards to people not showing up, I have talked to a series of people who said they would happy to attend this day since it is not on an academic day. The faculty has made it clear that the idea of coming would be much higher if it was on MLK Day. We also want to emphasize that this is a pilot program, open for revision.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment I (2 Minutes)
          1. In Plenary Packet: calls for constantly reexamining each year.
          2. The other amendment, we would also strongly consider 12 hours of community engagement in exchange. This would allow for students who may be international or can’t attend to make up for the event.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
          1. Madeline Guth ‘19: In this new friendly amendment, it says students are “expected”, but what does this mean?
            1. Response: We don’t have the capacity to make this mandatory for students.

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

          1. Con: Saket Sekahsaria ‘20: I’m wary that this will negate international students’ experiences.  
        1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
          1. Saumya opens voting
            1. Amendment fails.
      1. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Unfriendly Amendments (2 minutes)
          1. No unfriendly amendments.
      2. Moment of Silence
      3. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Julia: Opens voting.
          1. Resolution unclear, proceed to paper vote. Resolution did not pass.
      4. Vote on Extending Plenary by One Hour.
        1. Passes.
    1. Ratification of Honor Code
      1. Presentation of Honor Code
      2. Reflection on The Code (5 minutes)
      3. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Malcolm Thompson ‘21: Why is the section on English-language usage not on both social and academic portions?
          1. Response: It was not brought up under academic, but only under the socail code.
        2. Vaughn Papenhausen ‘18: There are not protections for political ideology in neither portion of the code. What are we going to do about that?
      4. Pro-Con Debate (20 Minutes)
        1. Pro: Emily Chazen ‘18: We made really substantial changes today and we are really able to make changes to how community interacts. We have put in so much time in to this work, so don’t just vote no to see how the community interacts.
        2. Pro: Charlotte Scott ‘21: I support this new version of the honor code. I acknowledge there still needs to be improvements. But, that being said, I really like to say that I am extremely impressed and inspired by all the work that SPC has done to make this a reality.
        3. Con: Chris Bechen ‘18: I don’t think we should be afraid of voting no. I think if the code isn’t working, I don’t think we should be guilted into voting yes. I think we need to consider what our community would look like without an honor code. It is a really interesting and empowering opportunity we have at this moment. We should consider the alternatives.
        4. Pro: Alex Stern ‘20: I want to echo something that Charlotte said. This is just the start and we are recognizing that. It is an imperfect code because we may not ever live completely up to it, but we can aspire and work towards getting better and better. I think SPC has shown that it isn’t impossible to write resolutions and to take part in this process.
        5. Pro: Vaughn Papenhausen ‘18: I am very impressed in the amount of individ work we have seen tonight. I also think that the code is extremely important part of this community and that it should passed.
        6. Middle: Kiamani Wilson ‘18: I just to remind everyone that it is 11:24pm let’s just keep it concise.
        7. Middle: Julian Robinson ‘20: I greatly feel what Chris brought up earlier. If we are going to be moving forward through this Code, we need to realize that it isn’t working for a lot of the people here. If we are going to go down this road of ratifying, then we have to be dedicated to making this Code work. I am tired of people using the “trust, concern, respect” ideology to avoid taking responsibility for biases.
        8. Middle: Anna Saum ‘18: I think it is really hard for me to look at this Code and say this doesn’t work. I am having trouble looking at this new, Code and saying it doesn’t work because we haven’t tried it yet. I am trying to consider what it means to vote yes/no to something we haven’t tried yet.
        9. Con: Joshua Gilshen ‘18: I did not ratify the HC because neither of the resolutions last fall actually passed with the administration. If that happens again, the HC is not working as it is supposed to. Only one of the resolutions this Plenary affects the administration directly.
        10. Pro: Eyasu Shumie ‘21: I want to echoe what emily was saying. I think there are elements in the new code that we have passed that are big steps in making real change on this campus. As to Joshua’s point, we worked with the administration to make sure that this HC can be passed and will have support by the faculty.
        11. Pro: Theodora Rodine ‘19: I think not passing the HC could potentially increase cop presence on this campus. The HC allows us to keep our campus safe without the police. I think the way the alcohol police works also is amazing for not having police and interacting in the typical way with state laws. This is not a scare tactic, I just think it is something to keep in mind.
        12. Con: Gaynor Norcott ‘20: I don’t want to push you to vote either way. I would like to remind people to not let half of the HC hold you hostage to the other half. The fact is that we as students hold a lot of power at this institution. If you don’t feel the social code reflects your value, you make a statement but refusing to back down on your beliefs.
        13. Pro: Isabel Floyd ‘20: I take a lot of the concerns to heart, but it is really unclear to me what our other path forward is. I don’t know what a better solution would look like.
        14. Pro: Riley Wheaton ‘20: 890 of you voted on the electronic ballot for the HC. On the comments, a ton of you talked about how much you value the code. The 10 of us have spent the last few weeks working on these changes–these changes come from you. If tonight shows us anything, we got 1,000 people to show up in 35 minutes. We have the capacity to make things better.
        15. Pro: Xaingou Dai ‘21: The idea that the HC at Haverford is something that is not rigid, but living and breathing. The HC we are working to ratify is very different than the HC from yesterday or the day before.
        16. Pro: Brette Hungar ‘21: I don’t think the HC is perfect. I am not certain this will work, but I do think that this is an improvement over the code that failed, and I think the alternative, if we don’t pass this code, is that the administration takes over. This would not be helpful to any of us.
        17. Middle: Liam Lynch ‘19: Resolution on the list for gender-neutral bathrooms is very important to uphold the ideas of the HC.
      5. Vote to Extend the time for 1 hour.
        1. Passes.
      6. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. We want to acknowledge that we will likely never have a perfect code. We want to keep working on it and investing in it. We would like to echo the thoughts shared by many, this is a big decision and we ask you to reflect on what you want Haverford to look like.
      7. Ratification of Honor Code via official ballot (Requires ⅔ of Student Body to pass)
        1. Final Results: Yes: 845, 50: Yes with objections, No: 10
      8. Lost Quorum: 11:57pm
        1. Gaynor Norcott ‘20 & Chris Bechen ‘18: By leaving, you are directly telling all of us that trans folks on this campus mean nothing to you. This is so important to trans people on this campus, please, if you care about us, call your friends and tell them to come back. I cannot stress to you how important this is. The fact that I have to continually convince people that my identity is valid is absolutely appalling.
        2. Carter ‘21: There are no gender neutral bathrooms in this building. This is sickening and appalling. This needs to change.
      9. Recount for Quorum:
        1. Regained Quorum at 12:56
    2. Resolution #7: Gender Neutral Bathrooms
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes)
        1. Presented by Brett Hungar ‘21, Devi Namboodiri ‘21
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. Julian Robinson ‘20: Why is this necessary?
          1. Response: If you come to the GIAC and need to use the restroom, not everyone can/has access. It is important to make sure that we change this reality. This is not a matter of just being comfortable, but also safety.
        2. Ana Saum ‘18: When do we expect to see some of these changes being made on campus?
          1. Response: First, immediately we will see better signage. Smaller changes include privacy changes to bathrooms. The next longer term changes include building new bathrooms.
        3. Ryan Wu ‘21: Did you all consult the trans community on campus regarding this resolution?
          1. Response: We did our best to talk to as many trans students as possible. We also reached out to Q House. All the feedback we have gotten so far has been positive.
        4. Russell Rivera ‘20: Do you guys have plans with Magill as they go through renovations?
          1. Reponse: So far, we have heard that this is going into the plans.
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. Pro: Julian Robinson ‘20: I could rant about what it is like to be a black person on this campus on its own, but as a black nonbinary person, I am constantly belittled by faculty, staff, and other people. Additionally, I have fear of having to come out to the people around me, because it is so much easier to live my daily life as a cis-gendered person. It would be so easy to pretend like this isn’t a problem.
        2. Pro: Eva Montgomery-Morrison ‘20: Thank you to everyone for doing the absolute bare minimum and the people who came back. If you dare to come up to the con microphone, you are actively making trans people on this campus unsafe. This is the absolute smallest step we could possibly take to protect the lives of trans/gender non conforming people on this campus.
        3. Pro: Matthew Soulman ‘19:
        4. Pro: Dina Turpin ‘18: I wanted to uplift voices of people whose voices fall outside the gender binary, but in addition, as a trans woman, who does fall within the gender binary, I represent another dynamic of this that needs to be recognized. There are also trans folks that don’t pass as cisgender who are affected everyday.
        5. Pro: Gaynor Norcott ‘20: It is a really big deal for those of you who don’t know. One of the things I wanted to say, is not to congratulate ourselves too quickly, this is the bare minimum. We are over quorum by 4 people. A reminder quick, if the entire athletic department showed up just now, we would’ve reached quorum. I watched a ton of white cis athletes leave just now. I am not out at home, or anywhere outside of this college, by parents don’t want me home because they don’t understand queerness. This has to be a safe space for me or else I have none. Please remember that you have to look a trans person in the eye, and say, “Yes, I left.” Remember this moment next time you claim to go to a good college.
        6. Pro: Jesse Friedson ‘20: To start, I am going to say that I am terrified to be here because now everyone is going to know I am trans. Some of you come from cultural backgrounds and don’t have it near as easy as I do. I want to invite you to engage in conversation with us. I think about this every second of my day. If you ever have any questions about what it is like, I am personally willing to answer any questions that you may have. So if you could learn into discomfort for a little, I would really appreciate it.
        7. Pro: Carter Patterson ‘20: sIf we oppose this resolution because you are uncomfortable, then find a different school.
      4. Response to Pro-Con Debate (3 Minutes)
        1. We would like to thank everyone who spoke and shared their stories with us. Also, we want to reiterate that this is not a final step, so let’s do this now, but let’s not stop.
      5. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)
          1. No friendly amendments.
      6. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
        1. No unfriendly amendments.
      7. Moment of Silence
      8. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
        1. Saumya: Opens voting.
          1. Resolution passes.
    3. Resolution #8: Presidential Powers
      1. Resolution Introduction (3 Minutes) Sarah Svetec, Emily Chazen with SPC
      2. Question and Answer (5 Minutes)
        1. No Q/A
      3. Pro-Con Presentations (10 Minutes)
        1. No P/C
      4. Call For Friendly Amendments (Supported By Presenters and Approved by Chairs) (5 Minutes)
        1. Presentation of Friendly Amendment (2 Minutes)
          1. We are adding the language of institution as well so that things pertaining to the institution are included.
        2. Question and Answer (3 Minutes)
          1. No Q/A

 

  • Pro-Con Debate (5 Minutes)

 

        1. Pro: Eyasu Shumie ‘21: I want to make sure people are thinking very clearly about the language. This would give President Benston a lot of power.
      1. Vote on Friendly Amendment
        1. Julia: Opens voting.
          1. Amendment passes.
    1. Call for Unfriendly Amendments (75 Signatures Needed) (5 Minutes)
      1. Presentation of Unfriendly Amendments (2 minutes)
        1. No Unfriendly Amendments.
    2. Moment of Silence
    3. Vote on Final Resolution (Requires 2/3 majority to pass)
      1. Saumya: Opens voting.
        1. Resolution passes.
  1. Final Moment of Silence