By: Nick D’Antonio, Cade Fanning, Jackson Juzang, and Paeton Smith-Hiebert
Yesterday, Haverford students gathered in the GIAC for this fall’s continuation of the college’s biannual tradition of Plenary, a Students’ Council-run event where the student body discusses and votes on resolutions proposed by students and organizations. On the docket were two proposed resolutions: one aimed at addressing the financial burden faced by international students regarding their summer funding, and the other focused on securing widespread availability of masks and COVID-19 rapid tests for students through institutional funding. As always, following the student-proposed resolutions was the renewal of the Alcohol Policy, presented by the Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAP).
Following a performance by Bounce, Plenary reached quorum (66% of the student body) in just under an hour after initially opening the doors. StuCo Co-Presidents Yehyun Song ’25 and Victoria Haber ’26 introduced themselves before extolling Plenary as an exemplar of Haverford’s commitment to student governance. They began with the State of the Fords, where they recapped the actions taken by StuCo since the last Plenary. These included efforts to more clearly define the individual responsibilities of Students’ Council positions, “demystify” how funding works at Haverford, and bridge the gap between students and administration. They received some cheers and applause from the students in attendance when they mentioned seeking solutions to issues with the Dining Center, notably the lack of takeout boxes outside of weekday lunch periods, and even more cheers when they discussed the addition of handrails to the electric Blue Bus.
The Community Outreach Multicultural Liaisons (COMLs) provided an overview of their position and introduced the community comment portion of Plenary. Representatives of Bi-Co Mutual Aid explained their organization and how they focus on the redistribution of wealth to those within the Bi-Co community who need it the most, encouraging Plenary attendees to donate. The Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) liaisons promoted several upcoming CAPS-affiliated events, as well as the various services their organization offers.
After being outlined by the Co-Presidents, the rules of order were ratified by a near-unanimous vote. Students in the GIAC voted by holding up sheets of plain paper, as electronic voting was deemed to be too much of a strain on Haverford’s Wi-Fi networks by IITS. Students attending in one of the satellite rooms or on Zoom voted via an online poll, which led to a roughly fifteen-minute delay when the Zoom call experienced technical difficulties.
Coco Liu ’26, International Students Representative to Students’ Council, introduced the first resolution, which sought to address the financial burden placed on international students whose summer funding is taxed at a higher rate due to the lack of appropriate tax treaties between their home countries and the United States. The resolution calls for greater transparency in tax classification, the creation of an International Student Tax Task Force, and the pursuit of additional funding coverage to ensure equitable access to summer opportunities for these students, particularly those from First Generation, Low Income (FGLI) backgrounds or those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). The task force is charged with addressing these issues appropriately, being formed by the end of November, and implementing solutions by the end of the 2024-25 academic year. Additionally, the resolution calls for an integration of these principles into Haverford’s 2030 “Summer Experiences for All” initiative.
Following the presentation of the resolution, the Co-Presidents opened the floor for a question-and-answer session. The resolution saw relatively little engagement, with only two questions presented—both focused on the cost of the program and the proposed funding source. Liu stated that ideally, the funding for the program should not be coming from existing sources, such as students’ tuition, which may have caused an increase. Following the Q&A session, the Co-Presidents moved on to the pro-con debate, which saw only one contribution from Maša (Masha) Kilibarda ’26, who expressed her support of the resolution, saying she was “living it every day.”
“As a low income international student, I have to fully financially support myself because my parents cannot afford to,” said Kilibarda. “I have to take care of all of my legal documents on my own. I just do everything on my own, I have no other support network other than Haverford. As my community and support network, I ask you to please support this resolution … This is such a great opportunity for us and a life changing opportunity and we need your support.” Following Kilibarda’s comment, the Co-Presidents quickly transitioned to voting, where the resolution passed with overwhelming support.
The next resolution was presented by Swagnita Das ’28 and Renata Muñoz ’25, member and co-head, respectively, of Disability Advocacy for Students at Haverford (DASH). It called for Haverford to fund the purchase of COVID-19 rapid tests and twenty masks for each student and staff member. Speaking on behalf of DASH, Muñoz pointed out that the United States is currently entering the 10th wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that forcing students to purchase their own masks and tests places an unfair financial strain on low-income students. Muñoz closed the presentation by claiming that it is a necessity to institutionalize the funding for health at Haverford.
During the Q&A portion, students’ questions mostly centered around how funding would be secured for the large quantity of masks (around 26,000) that the resolution planned to order, as well as other logistical concerns resulting from such a large order. In response, Muñoz explained how DASH had arrived at that figure in conjunction with Bi-Co Covid Co (which he founded) and outlined plans to distribute several different varieties of masks. One student questioned the focus on COVID-19, saying that singling out COVID “seems like a shot in the dark” that ignores other diseases. Muñoz pointed out that COVID is extremely contagious and particularly impacts the immunocompromised. Although more students raised their hands to ask questions, the co-presidents closed the Q&A section due to time constraints. They held a vote to extend the Q&A section, with a slight majority of students deciding not to prolong the section.
The pro-con debate began with a pro from Rhianna Searle ’27, who pointed out that taking care of one’s community is always important, especially in the aftermath of Tuesday’s election. She said that it should not cost students extra money to take care of others and themselves. The first con came from Peter LaRochelle ’25, who asked the students gathered to raise their hand if, in the past week, they had wanted to wear a mask but did not because they were unable to afford it. When nobody raised their hand, he argued that it proved “this resolution is a waste of money” and expressed his hopes that “we can spend money on something more productive.” Although most in attendance did not applaud LaRochelle’s statements, those that did (roughly one third) applauded and cheered particularly emphatically. The room was buzzing with side conversations in response to his remarks. The next student to offer a pro rebutted a comparison LaRochelle made between the two resolutions presented, arguing that one can support both. Chyane Sims ’26 gave the next con, pointing out that Bi-Co Covid Co has distributed less than 1,500 masks and are asking for 26,000, expressing concern over potential waste due to uncertainty surrounding the distribution process. In the next pro, Cristian Latorre ’27 directly rebuked LaRochelle’s attempts to demonstrate a lack of need for these supplies, arguing that it is inappropriate to ask low-income students to publicly identify themselves, and pointing out that an inability to afford masks and tests “can be a very embarrassing thing to say even if it shouldn’t be.” He then expressed support for the resolution, characterizing it as a way to care for the community.
Although the pro-con debate had hit the designated time limit, a vote to extend it passed. A pro from Zoom argued that a club should not have to fund mask purchases, stating that it is the school’s responsibility. The next student to give a con clarified that while he respected the spirit of the resolution, he found the figures exorbitant and claimed purchasing this many masks would deprive others who might need them more. Leo Brainard ’27 offered the next pro, explaining that the fears of wastefulness were unfounded, as tests do not expire quickly and excess masks may be stored for future usage [Note: Brainard is a photographer for the Clerk]. The next speaker did not offer a pro or con but simply remarked that he liked the idea of the resolution but found it excessive. A pro from Zoom again countered LaRochelle’s remarks, saying that “unless you are broke and disabled, don’t stand there and speak about this.” They highlighted the resolution’s relevance by referencing a recent email from Health Services warning about the transmission of whooping cough. When no more students offered to speak against the resolution, Mark Hargy ’26 gave the final pro, pointing out that COVID-19 tests cost around $20, a steep price for many students, and that removing that cost barrier would help keep classrooms safe from infectious diseases.
The concerns raised by community members in response to the resolution spurred several students to urgently workshop an amendment with the resolution writers. After about fifteen minutes of private discussion, the Co-Presidents finally announced the proposal of a friendly amendment (meaning it had the support of the resolution writers), which sought to address the anxieties surrounding potential wastefulness. The amendment proposed instituting a campus-wide survey to determine the proper distribution of materials. The announcement of a Q&A section for the amendment was met with loud groans from weary, visibly fatigued attendees, many of whom had already been seated for over two hours. Perhaps as a result, there were fewer questions asked. Those who did ask questions were primarily concerned with the finer logistics of the survey, and a vote to extend the Q&A failed by a substantial margin.
The pro-con section focused mostly on the efficacy of the amendment. One student pointed out that its inclusion would likely make the resolution more appealing to the administration. Those presenting cons argued that adding the amendment created an unnecessary barrier to the mask and test access proposed in the original text. However, the final pro disagreed, deeming the amendment provided a useful framework to the resolution. In a final response to the community comments, Muñoz clarified that the number of masks was not yet finalized and would remain subject to change. He also informed the audience that Bi-Co Covid Co had been trying to independently secure administrative funding for similar projects without success, which is why he opted to present the idea to Plenary for broader consideration.
After votes on the resolution from Zoom participants were recorded, voting began in the GIAC. Attendees overwhelmingly supported the resolution, with approximately 90% in favor and only a small number of abstentions and votes against. The amendment also passed with a similarly strong majority. As a result, the resolution, along with the amendment, passed.
To close out Plenary, JSAAP co-heads Tristan Charles ’25 and Keyla Ramirez ’25 began a brief presentation of the alcohol policy, taking only a few minutes to outline its basic tenets and inform the audience that no updates had been made this year. At the start of the Q&A section, Song warned those in attendance that Plenary was in danger of falling below quorum. When two students began walking towards the exit, they were met with shouts and boos from the audience until they sat down—a decision that earned them loud cheers and applause.
The pro-con section saw no cons and only one pro, when Jillian Aguilar Garfias ’25 simply stated that the alcohol policy is effective. The JSAAP representatives responded by quickly thanking the attendees for listening, and voting commenced on Zoom. Many in the GIAC were already raising their papers to vote to approve the alcohol policy before the Co-Presidents even finished asking for votes, indicating a clear desire to conclude Plenary. When confirmation of the policy passed, nearly all in the GIAC immediately rushed to the exit.
Reached for comment after Plenary, Liu expressed gratitude for the support her resolution received, noting that it made international students feel more visible to the broader student body. She feels “fairly confident” that the resolution will be accepted by administration, but does “anticipate some complications in implementing the resolution” due to the complexity of the issues it tackles. Overall, she remains optimistic in the ability of Haverford to implement the resolution effectively.
Muñoz expressed a mixture of satisfaction and cautious optimism following Plenary, noting that he was pleased to see the student body unite in support of measures that would expand resources for students and promote broader concepts of disability justice. “I’m really glad that this resolution was able to pass, and also that we were able to kind of informally gauge where the student body lies on the issues of accessibility and disability justice,” he said. Muñoz also emphasized the importance of the moment in validating the experiences of disabled students: “For a lot of this journey, many disabled students, including myself, have been made to feel alone, mainly by members of the administration. So it is really validating to see that we’re not alone, that this is a problem many students are facing, and that we can be part of the solution.” He also praised the students that proposed the friendly amendment that aimed to address some of the concerns raised in the contentious pro-con debate: “I really appreciate that the amendment writers really brought this up in good faith, and we’re genuinely interested in seeing how we can pass this resolution in a way that is addressing some of the concerns that students were voicing. I appreciate the kind of creative thinking and I’m hoping that this will make things easier for people to access those resources.”
Muñoz, a fierce advocate on campus for increasing accessibility at Haverford since he arrived on campus, claimed that “some of the comments didn’t totally surprise me,” pointing to the challenges of advocating for increased accessibility in a space where these issues are often misunderstood or dismissed entirely.
While he expressed confidence in the resolution measures moving forward, Muñoz reemphasized the need for community support he highlighted during Plenary. “They tend to really individualize these issues and say “this is just a ‘you problem,’” he said. “And a lot of times, they said it to me specifically. ‘Oh, this is just a Renata thing.’ But today, we showed that it isn’t.”
Another student in a post-Plenary interview echoed some of Muñoz’s sentiments, reminding the community of the resolution’s purpose and noting that many might overlook its impact on disabled individuals. The student—a junior who asked to remain anonymous—emphasized how, in discussions focused on logistics and expenses, the needs of Haverford’s disabled students could risk being sidelined, underscoring the importance of keeping these individuals’ needs at the forefront as the college considers allocating its resources.
Following the passage of the resolution, Kieran Kunihiro ’26, who did not present during the amendment drafting process or the subsequent pro-con debate, proposed a potential solution in an interview with the Clerk. Kunihiro suggested that making masks available through Health Services would balance accessibility with cost-effectiveness, as these resources are funded by Haverford. By doing so, masks would remain accessible to those who need them while avoiding overspending. Kunihiro aimed to offer a way forward that addressed community needs accessibility without depleting the College’s resources on excessive supplies, ensuring both accessibility and financial responsibility.
After Plenary, Song revealed that it exceeded his expectations “in the most positive way you can think of.” Although he expressed satisfaction with the turnout, he voiced concern regarding the students, specifically how global events as well as students’ personal lives could lead to disengagement or discouragement from students with the Plenary process. However, he stated that “seeing students reach quorum relatively fast … and also not losing quorum ever was an incredible reassurance to me, saying that our students still care, and they do care and that in a way, we do need big community gatherings like this.”
“Something to feel triumphant over is the fact that something we weren’t expecting happened,” said Haber. “That friendly amendment process was completely out of left field for the both of us. I think that this is a testament to the fact that our students are still engaged. They’re still interested in what happens here at Haverford.”
Haber echoed Song’s sentiment, expressing appreciation of Plenary as a forum for student perspectives. “Some of it made me think: ‘Okay, how is this a valid concern?’ There’s a lot of legitimacy in our student body. I think they just have a lot of great perspective, a lot that they want to share, a lot they want to discuss, and that is really what makes us Fords.”
Reporting by Lily Aparin-Buck, Nick D’Antonio, Cade Fanning, Jackson Juzang, and Paeton Smith-Hiebert
Photos by Leo Brainard
Be First to Comment