A Wizard’s Guide to Spring Plenary 2025: Chaos, Confusion, and a Sprinkle of Magic

By: Sofia Malaspina, Jackson Juzang, Nick D’Antonio, and Sophia Furman

Photos by Cristian Latorre ’27

Chaos was the main ingredient of this Sunday’s wizard-themed Spring Plenary. On March 23rd, students gathered in the GIAC to vote on five resolutions and call for the opening of ratification of the Honor Code. Students’ Council members were easily identifiable in their sparkly wizard hats. 

Students were able to enter the GIAC without waiting in line, arriving sporadically starting at 1:30 p.m., which allowed quorum (66% of the student body) to be reached by 2:39 p.m. In the interim, BOUNCE, one of Haverford’s student dance teams, entertained the crowd with their customary Plenary performance. The GIAC seemed less crowded than usual, with many students opting to join the event on Zoom or in satellite rooms. 

After a brief moment of silence, StuCo presidents Yehyun Song ’25 and Victoria Haber ’26 presented the State of the Fords, recapping StuCo’s accomplishments since Fall Plenary 2024. These included increasing to-go box availability in the Dining Center and purchasing new furniture for Zubrow Commons. 

Themes of empathy and inclusion were especially relevant to this Plenary session. Song and Haber made a statement about the current political landscape, echoing concerns about national threats to DEI, international students’ safety, and research budget cuts. They urged the student body to stay engaged in the ongoing dialogue and extend compassion to those most affected by detrimental policy changes. 

Student organizations and their efforts were spotlighted during the Community Comments segment, including Bi-Co Mutual Aid, Students for Reproductive Health (SRH), the GRASE Center, and the Haverford Attitude and Opinion Surveys. They announced their presence at various tables in the GIAC and discussed upcoming events and aims. 

At 2:52 p.m., the Plenary agenda and rules of order were presented. The co-presidents reminded students of the session’s 3.5-hour time limit, which can be extended up to one hour in two 30-minute increments. Voting for students in Zoom and satellite rooms was handled electronically, while students in the GIAC voted by raising sheets of paper. The rules of order were ratified by a supermajority vote of 66%, and resolution presentations commenced at 3:03 p.m.

Resolution #1: A Clear and Concise Constitution – Passed with a Supermajority

The Students’ Council Constitution Committee presented the first resolution, which called for reorganizing and shortening the current constitution from 86 to 34 pages. According to the committee, the current constitution has become a “hodge-podge of constitutional amendments,” making election policies almost impossible to understand. In their revised version, they’ve removed constitutional redundancies and made additions only when a fundamental policy/practice was missing, such as friendly and unfriendly amendments, which are part of Plenary every semester. 

During the Q&A for the resolution, Aspen Mulik ‘27 asked the committee to clarify how improvements in clarity and concision were made. Reed Solomon ‘25 asked how the committee decided which contradicting clauses to keep in the constitution, to which the committee replied that they kept the policies that are currently in practice. Only two students spoke in the pro/con debate, with Madeline Berkowitz ‘28 advocating for the new, more accessible constitution and Ibrahim Hafeez ‘27 expressing worry that aspects could get “lost in translation.” 

The voting process was completed in just three minutes, with an overwhelming number of students voting in favor of the resolution. 

Resolution #2: SEPTA UPass Resolution – Passed with a Simple Majority

The second resolution, presented by Daniel Bhatti ‘25 and Santiago Melendez ‘27, proposed implementing a SEPTA UPass program that would provide all Haverford students with subsidized public transportation access for a $60-per-semester fee. The presenters explained that the goal was to reduce transportation barriers to Philadelphia for professional, academic, and recreational opportunities, making the city more accessible to all students. 

During the Q&A, students raised concerns about costs, ridership, data, and how the pass would function during breaks. Presenters admitted they had no ridership numbers but emphasized that the resolution would reduce average transportation expenses–currently around $225—to a flat $60. They confirmed the pass would not be active during January or the summer and inaccurately stated that the financial aid office would not cover the fee, a sticking point for many low-income students. 

The pro/con debate revealed strong opinions on both sides. Sam Diaz ‘25, an Education major, spoke in favor of the resolution, sharing that he takes the SEPTA regularly to teach in Philadelphia and that the program would help students like him immensely. Arlo Tannenbaum ‘25 argued for broader community consideration, stating that public transportation should be viewed as a shared resource, even for students who may not use it often. However, others expressed frustration over the opt-out limitations and potential financial burden.

Ben Perez-Flesler ‘27 added a passionate pro, recounting an interaction with a prospective student on a campus tour who ultimately chose not to attend Haverford because of its lack of institutional transit access. “Haverford,” he recalled the student saying, “is considered a downgrade and a moral embarrassment for not having public transportation”–a statement met with both jeers and cheers from the crowd.

Still, controversy surrounded the resolution. After the initial informal vote appeared to pass, more than eight students objected, prompting a full re-vote via online ballot. One of those objectors, Zach Miano ‘28, explained to The Clerk, “First off, I wanted to vote against the resolution and not have a burden placed on every Haverford student for an entity they may or may not use. Haverford should push the administration to pay for the service like Swarthmore does. The second reason is they couldn’t know they passed it based on eyeballing the number, and it was too close to call.”

The final electronic vote was counted after a significant delay caused by technical difficulties and debates over the voting procedure. The resolution passed by a razor-thin margin–51.3% in favor–making it the most contentious outcome of the day.

Confusion broke out in the GIAC as Perez-Flesler, a Community Outreach Multicultural Liaison, announced that the resolution writer misspoke and that the $60 fee would, in fact, be covered by financial aid. Multiple students then approached Song and Haber, asking for a community-wide clarification, which they could not provide. 

“Unfortunately, the speaker did make a mistake during their presentation, as well as during the Q&A,” Haber explained to The Clerk. “Students were coming up and asking us if we could allow the speaker or a completely separate unaffiliated student to make a statement as clarification.” 

“We couldn’t just do that on the flux because when we start, we ratify the rules of order,” Song stated. The Plenary rules of order prohibit resolution writers from making clarifications once they’ve already spoken. “By going off the rules of orders, we’re also violating the Constitution,” Song continued. “We as students sometimes make mistakes, and we as Students’ Council cannot talk on behalf of the resolution writers.” 

Resolution #3: Reallocate and Raise the Nest Food Pantry’s Funds – Passed with a Simple Majority

The third resolution called for increased funding for the college’s food pantry, the Nest, which is currently funded $30,000 per semester by StuCo. The resolution writers crafted the proposal to mend the Nest’s current budgeting schedule’s loophole, which only allows students to access food and funding during the academic calendar. In addition to receiving adequate resources during breaks, the resolution proposed that Chesick and Liftfar students employed at the Nest would receive an increase in wages without losing their hours or weekly food budget, and that the space would be refurbished.

The community response to this resolution was overwhelmingly positive. Heads turned when Liftfar and Chesick student Bailey Bowman ‘25 stood up to give a con for the pro/con debate, but everyone smiled after she spoke: “My only con is that this didn’t happen sooner.” The resolution, described by one of its writers as an “act of love,” was quickly passed.

Resolution #4: Implementation of Post-9/11 GI Benefits as Commitment to Equitable Collegiate Access – Passed with a Simple Majority

The penultimate resolution addressed GI benefits, highlighting how Haverford is one of the few schools that treats Post-9/11 GI benefits as an outside scholarship, reducing Haverford aid on a dollar-for-dollar basis. This resolution, created by Anna Keneally ‘26, aimed to allow students from families with military backgrounds to receive full financial aid from Haverford alongside their GI benefits. Keneally opened her resolution presentation by stating, “I am a military child, and I’m thankful that I got to pick the school that I wanted to go to, based on the one I love.” 

 During the Q&A portion of the resolution, student Max Champlin ‘25 asked, “Will this change Haverford’s non-violent and Quaker character?” Keneally responded, “I think the greatest tool we have against unnecessary militarization is education, and being able to provide people with this is very much in line with Quaker values.”

Caroline Frost ‘26 opened pro/con debate with a pro, highlighting the “current political climate,” and stating that since “access to education is under threat, any opportunity to decrease that threat should be taken.” Ben Fligelman ‘26 followed with a con, arguing that passing this resolution would privilege some students over others for “something that is basically an accident of birth,” and urged fellow students to vote against the resolution. 

Students referenced Haverford’s Quaker values on both sides of the debate. One student argued that providing increased access to education would prevent the growth of the military, while Nathan ‘25 stated, “increased compensation to military families for joining the military…effectively creates a private defense fund.” 

Another student speaking for the amendment shared their experience with having veteran parents who are unable to work and provide tuition. 

After roughly 10 minutes, the pro/con debate ended, allowing Keneally to respond to the question and students’ thoughts. She quickly responded to certain comments, such as Fligelman’s, emphasizing that the “accident of birth” argument is inherently racist and disregards the life circumstances of children of veterans. Keneally added that sometimes joining the military is out of necessity and that she is personally anti-military. With time expiring, she finished by commenting that financial aid policies for other outside scholarships should be discussed more. 

During the voting process in the GIAC, a handful of students held up their papers to abstain from the resolution. However, the resolution was passed with no objections, and the GIAC erupted with applause. 

Resolution #5: Accountability Procedure for Honor Council Members – Passed with a Supermajority

The final resolution asked for regulations holding the Honor Council accountable to be written into the Honor Code. Brought to Plenary by Honor Council members themselves, the bill’s main aim was to uphold trust in the Honor Code, Honor Council proceedings, and ultimately, the Haverford community. During Q&A, a student over Zoom asked how the anonymity of an Honor Council member who violates the Honor Code would be protected; the council responded that anonymity would not be their priority in such cases. The emphasis on accountability was appreciated by Emery Casucci ‘28 and Jack Moumdijian ‘28, who spoke in favor of the resolution, which ultimately passed.

Opening the Ratification of the Honor Code – Passed with a Supermajority

At 5:40 p.m., the agenda transitioned to opening ratification of the Honor Code. Honor Council Co-Chairs Caroline Yao ’27 and Luke Smithberg ’25 delivered the State of the Code, noting a concerning rise in academic dishonesty and calling on students to recommit to the Code’s values of trust, concern, and respect.

“Without Honor Council, these cases would be handled by administrators,” Smithberg warned, referencing increased faculty concern and discussion. Yao emphasized that academic dishonesty erodes trust and threatens the Code’s future. The pair touched on the impact of social influence and the student body’s collective responsibility to uphold community values. The urgent tone of their statements hit home for the tired audience, who tuned in for the final few minutes of the event.

At 5:57 p.m., the decision to open ratification of the Honor Code passed with over two-thirds support, concluding Plenary proceedings. Students will vote electronically on whether to ratify the code later this week. 

Post-Plenary Debrief with StuCo Presidents

Asked how they felt about student engagement during Plenary, Haber stated that although the Students’ Council was initially worried about reaching quorum, student turnout was comparable to last fall’s Plenary. However, the co-presidents noted a general sense of fatigue among Haverford students. “I think every Spring Plenary is difficult because we’re all facing that motivation slump of the academic year,” stated Song. “We also recognize a lot of political exhaustion amongst the student body.”

Despite this, Song and Haber expressed admiration for students who participated in Q&A, pro/con debates, and objections. “The engagement we saw from students today doesn’t have to end at Plenary. These conversations, if students feel so compelled, should continue.”

Responding to concerns about the accuracy of informal voting procedures, Haber stated that raising packets allows students to engage quickly and efficiently. “Naturally, where that does fall short is if we have a visual split and the election coordinators make a decision that students don’t agree with,” Haber said. “But, of course, the solution is the ‘object’ option that students have, and that students went forward with.” Both Haber and Song stated that, due to Wi-Fi limitations, informal voting is more effective than electronic voting. They encouraged students who disagree to propose a future resolution for improved Wi-Fi.

Reflecting on the afternoon’s events, Song stated, “I try to look at it positively in the sense that people were engaged, people were listening, right? Although students were coming to us with their frustrations, it would be easy for us to take that personally, but there is no other space in which students can do that freely and feel that power, and I think that’s a beautiful thing.” 

Note: Students whose last names could not be verified in time for publication are identified by their first names only.