Fall Plenary 2025: Restoring a Student-Authored Honor Code 

By:  Pae Smith-Hiebert, Cade Fanning, Nick D’Antonio, Sofia Malaspina, and Alex Ellison-Drum

Photos by Siena Solis ’28

On Sunday, November 9, students gathered in the Calvin Gooding ’84 Arena in the Gardner Integrated Athletic Center (GIAC) for the Fall Plenary 2025. The customary biannual gathering provides Haverford students an opportunity to gather in person, discuss and debate proposed resolutions, and initiate the process of Honor Code ratification. This year’s session, which featured both an IKEA and construction theme, included six resolutions, all proposed by the Committee for Student Community, Agency, and Responsibility (CSCAR). Each resolution aimed to rebuild the Code and restore its status as a student-authored document.

Inside the GIAC, a merchandise table overflowed with stickers and t-shirts featuring IKEA-inspired designs by Students’ Council Officer of the Arts Julie Edelstein ’26, including art in the style of IKEA’s instruction manuals and other iconic symbols of the company like the stuffed Blåhaj and Djungelskog. Although the boba tea that had become a Plenary staple in previous years was notably absent, a snack station offered an assortment of treats, including fresh and dried fruits and vegetables, chips, pretzels, and applesauce. Attendance sheets for various sports teams lined the back wall, with the Athletics Department offering a free meal to the team with the highest Plenary attendance. In keeping with the IKEA theme, some Students’ Council members wore IKEA bucket hats and assembled small pieces of furniture before the event.

Various organizations were stationed at tables around the GIAC, including Haverpedia, the GRASE Center, Bi-Co Mutual Aid, the Tea Tasting Club, Students for Reproductive Health, and various student-run media organizations.

At 1:00 p.m., doors opened and students slowly streamed into the GIAC. In the interim, one of Haverford’s dance teams, Bounce, performed routines to Britney Spears’s “Toxic” and JENNIE and Doechii’s “ExtraL.” Quorum was reached at 2:05 p.m. Attendance reached approximately 1,000 students at various points throughout the session, while dipping closer to quorum limits after the midpoint of Plenary.

The “Community Comment” section, for which students registered in advance, included an announcement from Students’ Council Officer of Multiculturalism and Affinity Group Coalition Co-Head Jonathan Lee ’27, who introduced a new Affinity Group Events Calendar. Anjali Agarwal ’27 of Bi-Co Mutual Aid also spoke, offering a brief explanation of the organization and encouraging students to contribute to the mutual aid fund. Wrapping up the Community Comments with a brief skit, CSCAR Co-Heads Sofie Quirk ’28 and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27 provided an overview of the proposed resolutions.

Next, Co-Presidents Benjamin Fligelman ’26 and Sarah Weill-Jones ’26 delivered the “State of the Ford” address, thanking all the students and organizations involved in rebuilding the Code. Fligelman argued that while the Code is a living document, it is “only alive if we continue to engage with it,” with Weill-Jones adding that the reconstructed Code is “truly reflective” of Haverford’s spirit. Citing the recent additions of picnic tables to Lloyd Green and chairs to the Dining Center fireplace as examples of their efforts, the Co-Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to improving student life. Weill-Jones added that the Co-Presidents communicated with students and student organizations throughout the drafting process. They expressed their goal of fostering a sense of belonging at Haverford, concluding with a quote from New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s acceptance speech: “We will fight for you, because we are you.”

The Co-Presidents then launched into a discussion of the Plenary rules of order, including guidelines for the pro-con debate and the voting procedures. As usual, students in the GIAC were instructed to raise their Plenary packets for an informal vote. However, a new formal voting method was introduced for cases where the informal vote is unclear. Six volunteers from the Special Events Committee for Students (SECS) were asked to walk around the GIAC and take a formal tally of the raised packets. This new procedure eliminated the need for a Google Form during formal voting, which had caused difficulties in past Plenaries due to Wi-Fi issues.

Zoom attendees received a link to a Google Form, while students in satellite rooms (the GIAC conference room and Sharpless Auditorium) followed voting procedures set by the Students’ Council member in attendance. Each group had two minutes to cast their votes before informal voting began in the GIAC. 

After opening the floor for discussion and receiving no response, the Co-Presidents moved to ratify the rules of order, which were passed with support from more than two-thirds of attendees. Immediately afterward, the presentation of the first resolution, “Constitutional Updates,” began.

RESOLUTION #1: Constitutional Updates

Presented by Ben Fligelman ’26, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, Sofie Quirk ’28, and Jack Weinstein ’27 on behalf of the CSCAR

Students’ Council Officer of Academics Jack Weinstein ’27 presented the first resolution alongside Quirk and Perez-Flesler. The presenters began by outlining the history of changes to the Code, President Raymond’s decision to implement a temporary Code last spring to meet legal requirements, and the implementation of the CSCAR during the summer.

The first question came from Luke Valpine ’27, who asked about the difference between Section 2.07’s “extenuating circumstances” and a failure to reach quorum for two consecutive Plenary sessions. Perez-Flesler explained that the distinction was simply a matter of semantics. The next question, from Julia Chanda ’26, concerned the specific legal changes being made to the Code in relation to federal legal frameworks, particularly those addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Quirk responded that these matters would be addressed in the Social Code (Resolution #4), noting that Resolution #1 focuses solely on constitutional updates rather than substantive policy revisions. The final question came from Nicky Elias-Gillette ’28, who argued that a semesterly ratification of the Honor Code was unnecessary. Perez-Flesler answered that it would not significantly add to the itinerary for future Plenaries and would make the ratification process “less intense.”

In the pro-con debate, Students’ Council Librarian Ian Trask ’28 was the first to speak in favor of the resolution, highlighting the benefit of the language that allows Students’ Council to address concerns regarding governing documents as they arise, rather than waiting for future Plenary sessions. Valpine then returned to the microphone to speak against the resolution, expressing concern about the future of Plenary if this resolution were to pass. He questioned whether the practice would disappear altogether after two failed sessions, asking, “Would we ever have Plenary again?” Jack Feinstein ’26, member of the CSCAR, noted that while the rules did not need to remain identical from year to year, passing this resolution was essential to allow the current Plenary to proceed. “Without this, we go from screwing ourselves in the future to screwing ourselves now,” Feinstein said. 

After a brief pause for additional comments, Quirk and Perez-Flesler assured students that the issues mentioned had been addressed in the text of the resolutions. Perez-Flesler justified the proposed changes to procedure regarding failed Plenaries, explaining that “as much as we would like to be idealistic” regarding student participation at Plenary, “it could be that we never reach [quorum] again.”

With no responses to Weill-Jones’s call for friendly or unfriendly amendments, a brief moment of silence was held before voting on the resolution began. With only a few abstentions and votes against in the GIAC, the Elections Coordinators announced that the first resolution had passed. Fligelman then moved to introduce the second resolution.

RESOLUTION #2: Adopting a Preamble and Article I (Introduction) of a New Honor Code

Presented by Jonah Paterson ’26, Sofie Quirk ’28, and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27 on behalf of the CSCAR

The CSCAR Co-Chairs and Jonah Paterson ’26 presented the second resolution, explaining the decision to begin the new preamble with a quote from former President Isaac Sharpless. The presenters expressed concern that students often repeat the Haverfordian tagline of “trust, concern, and respect” without fully reflecting on those values or incorporating them into their actions as community members, with Paterson adding that these values are too complex to be accurately captured in the Honor Code’s text.

After outlining the text and intent of the resolution, Fligelman opened the floor for questions; receiving none, he proceeded to the pro-con debate, which likewise saw no participation. Following another call for friendly and unfriendly amendments, which also received no response, Fligelman moved to the voting process. With only a few “no” votes and abstentions, the Elections Coordinators announced that the resolution had passed. Weill-Jones called to move to the following resolution, but was interrupted by Elections Coordinator Hettie Van Dyke ’28, who reminded the Co-Presidents to ask for objections. The Co-Presidents then asked any attendees with objections to come forward. When no one objected, they proceeded to the following resolution.

RESOLUTION #3: Adopting Article II (Confrontation) of a New Honor Code

Presented by Quentin Cooper ’29, Gavin Gibson ’28, Abby Lurensky ’27, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, & Sofie Quirk ’28 on behalf of the CSCAR

The third resolution proposed a redefinition of “confrontation” within the context of the Honor Code. The presenters emphasized that while confrontation is a necessary aspect of community accountability, it must also be approached with care. As Perez-Flesler noted, “there is a fine line between confrontation and feeling unsafe.”

Upon conclusion of the resolution’s presentation, Weill-Jones opened the floor for the Q&A portion. After a long pause, Claire Reisberg ’27 read a section from a previous version of the Honor Code defining confrontation, highlighting cultural, identity-based, and political factors, as well as language explicitly addressing acts of cultural insensitivity, microaggressions, and bigotry or discriminatory behavior. She concluded by questioning why this language had been removed from both the temporary and proposed new Honor Code, expressing concern that white students might weaponize the omission to avoid accountability.

Quirk responded that the section was intentionally kept succinct to focus solely on defining confrontation, noting that language addressing these values had been moved to the following section on the Social Code. Perez-Flesler added that “we can’t have that language in the Honor code according to legal issues and what the administration has told us,” claiming that in writing the new Honor Code, the resolution presenters had aimed to take that language and reshape it in a way that fits the Code. Quirk encouraged students with additional concerns to raise them during the following resolution proceedings and reminded everyone to “listen up,” echoing Weill-Jones’s earlier request that everyone remain quiet while others speak.

After a brief pro from JJ Melville ’26 over Zoom, a junior offered a con, arguing that information from the Social Code on anti-racism should also be included in the confrontation section, especially given that confrontation can cause harm. Rhianna Searle ’27 offered a pro, highlighting the necessity of discomfort and praising the distinction between constructive discomfort and harmful discomfort that threatens student safety and wellbeing. Fligelman then concluded the pro-con discussion before briefly reopening it to allow Leo Burdick ’28 to present another con; Burdick suggested that a more precise delineation was needed between confrontation and harm.

Weill-Jones then concluded the discussion and invited the resolution authors to respond to the points raised during the pro-con debate. Perez-Flesler stated that confrontation should not be used as a weapon, and that the distinction between discomfort and feeling unsafe is a personal one, explaining that “we don’t want to prescribe exactly what that is because we don’t want that definition to be used” inaccurately in relation to someone’s personal experience. Once votes from the GIAC and satellite sites were tallied—with this resolution receiving more “no” votes than any other resolution thus far—the Elections Coordinators announced that the resolution had passed, allowing CSCAR to move on to their following proposal.

Resolution #4: Adopting Article II (The Social Code) of a New Honor Code

Presented by Althea Grubbs-Aubrecht ’29, Clare Jackson ’29, Max Johnson ’29, Sonya Ravipatti ’29, Sofie Quirk ’28, and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27 on the behalf of the CSCAR

The presenters read the first two sections of the proposed changes in full and paraphrased the final two sections, which focused on the application of the Social Code in physical and academic spaces. After the presentation concluded, Fligelman noted that several students had left Plenary and that the student body was only 40 people away from losing quorum.

The Q&A portion began with a follow-up question from Reisberg, who raised concerns that the current resolution text might allow students to claim “reverse racism” due to the vague language in both the Social Code and Confrontation sections. She referenced the infamous Charlie’s Angels 1994 Honor Council trial, the resulting “Sabrina Speaks” letter, and a highly controversial 2020 email from President Wendy Raymond and then-Interim Dean of the College Joyce Bylander discouraging students from attending Black Lives Matter protests due to COVID-19 and other safety concerns. Perez-Flesler acknowledged the point, stating, “We’ve all read Sabrina Speaks,” and explained that while CSCAR had tried to include language discouraging students from weaponizing the Code, they could not provide a more concrete solution because “whatever you write in the Honor Code, someone is going to find a way to weaponize it.” Quirk added that changes had been made to ensure legal compliance and stated, “I hope you know that even if words are not explicit in the Code, they are values we still uphold as students.”

In the pro-con debate, Paterson gave the first pro, reiterating his point from a previous resolution presentation: the values of a community cannot be fully captured in text. Paterson also noted that similar language had existed in the Code before, but had not prevented incidents such as Charlie’s Angels. 

Madeleine Berkowitz ’28 spoke “neutrally,” accusing the Code of bowing to censorship. She explained that “a gutted and censored Honor Code is not an Honor Code, and a Haverford without an Honor Code is not a Haverford that I care about.” A member of the Class of 2026 called the resolution a “hollow husk of a Social Code” and asked, “What’s the point of a Social Code if we’re not using it to stand up for what is right?” Reisberg returned to the floor, asking, “Shouldn’t there be some things that we stand for, regardless of the consequences?” She re-read the relevant section of the old Honor Code, questioning whether the removal of language specifically referencing “anti-racism” was something the community wanted to accept. 

Quentin Cooper ’29 offered a pro comment, expressing appreciation for the resolution’s vague language, which he argued allows the Code to address a variety of harms.  Trask contributed another pro, stating that while he disagrees with removing the language, voting against the resolution would “forfeit our right to have a student-run Honor Code.” Charlie Harris ’28 gave a pro in which he pointed out that both the Students’ and Honor Councils are working under restrictive conditions that punish free speech and expressed confidence in their commitment to stand up to all forms of discrimination.

Fligelman paused the pro-con proceedings, noting that the debate had reached its allotted time, and moved to open voting for a 10-minute extension. Formal voting was deemed too close to call, so the Elections Coordinators announced they would proceed with hand-counting, which elicited an audible groan from GIAC attendees. The SECS volunteers moved throughout the GIAC to count raised packets, with far fewer votes to extend the debate than in the initial vote. After a seven-minute vote-counting process, the vote to extend the discussion ultimately failed.

Fligelman then allowed the resolution presenters to respond to the pro-con discussion. They addressed concerns about the language, with Jackson acknowledging that many of her intersecting identities were “under fire” by the current administration, but emphasizing that CSCAR had pushed “right up” to the line with the Code’s content without risking serious retaliation within current federal frameworks. She also pointed out that more specific language would not fix the issues brought up by the pro-con discussion, claiming that “no matter how much language we add to the code, the students will still behave the same way.” Quirk clarified that failure to pass this resolution, and the new Code in general, would not mean a return to the old student-written Code of Fall 2024, but rather to the temporary Code enacted by administrators in May. Perez-Flesler explained that they had been advocating for a Code supported by all students, noting with some frustration that the feedback received during this Plenary session differed from the input gathered over the previous three months.

Fligelman then called for friendly and unfriendly amendments. Hearing none, he reopened voting. With only a few rejections and abstentions, the resolution passed.

RESOLUTION #5: Adopting Article IV (The Academic Code) of a New Honor Code 

Presented by Mahek Jhaveri ’27, Ellison King ’29, Oscar Turner ’29, Jack Weinstein ’27, Ben Perez-Flesler ’27, and Sofie Quirk ’28 on behalf of the CSCAR

As students walked toward the leftmost door, which allowed them to leave the Arena to use the restroom without being removed from quorum, Fligelman and Weill-Jones emphasized the importance of maintaining attendance. Weill-Jones noted that the body was only thirty-six people away from losing quorum, and Fligelman urged students to “turn back around.” The confusion might have been caused by the Co-Presidents failing to clearly explain the door guidelines —something typically reiterated at previous Plenary sessions for any new students. First-year Raaneya Dehlavi ’29 told The Clerk that although she had a Customs meeting regarding Plenary, she had not been informed of the rule.

After a brief call for questions from attendees in the Q&A section, Weill-Jones moved on to the pro-con section. Alex Xu ’29 was the first to speak but asked a question rather than presenting a pro or con, inquiring why there was no language in the resolution explicitly ensuring respect for professors. Mahek Jahveri ’27 noted that his concerns had been addressed in the previous resolution, particularly the subsection regarding the Social Code in academic environments. Deven Abrams ’26 then questioned the characterization of Honor Code violations as primarily occurring under stress or other pressures, asking why the text did not explicitly state that violations were ultimately a choice. The resolution presenters responded that this idea is heavily implied in the resolution, with Weinstein quoting the Code’s definition of academic integrity as an “act of intentional honesty.”

Recognizing that this had turned into a Q&A discussion, Weill-Jones again announced the beginning of the pro-con section. Dan Gordon ’29 raised concerns about the lack of clarity around AI use and called for a standard to guide students when professors have not clarified their specific policies. A comment from a Zoom attendee, read aloud by Weill-Jones, expressed support for the resolution, highlighting how academic Honor Code violations impacted disabled students. The next pro, offered by Valpine, addressed the rise in academic dishonesty and students’ reluctance to confront cheating.

Although not a presenter for the resolution, Paterson responded to a previous concern about the AI policy. He pointed out that the Academic Code places the responsibility for clarifying policies on students, not on professors. Quirk and Perez-Flesler supported Paterson’s assessment, explaining that CSCAR had been in extensive conversations with faculty during the drafting process. Due to differing faculty opinions on AI use and because the Honor Code cannot dictate course-specific policies, implementing an all-encompassing, generic policy was deemed infeasible.

Weill-Jones then called for any amendments, observed a moment of silence, and moved to voting. The resolution passed with minimal opposition and a few abstentions.

RESOLUTION #6: Adopting Article V (Related Practices, Policies, and Procedures) of a New Honor Code and Creating the Honor Council Charter

Presented by Jack Feinstein ’26, Clare Jackson ’29, Jonah Paterson ’26, Sofie Quirk ’28, and Ben Perez-Flesler ’27 on behalf of the CSCAR

After the presenters provided an overview of the purpose of the final resolution and clarified the difference between the Honor Code and its accompanying Honor Council Charter, Weill-Jones opened the floor for the Q&A portion. Receiving no interest, the session moved directly to the pro-con discussion.

The first pro comment came from Jack Moumdijan ’28, who expressed appreciation for the inclusion of restorative practices in addressing Code violations, while also noting the importance of alternative resolution methods such as panels composed of community and Honor Council members. Ben Fitzgerald ’26 used his time to promote alternative ways to effect change, such as student walkout efforts, and to promote an upcoming meeting to plan a walkout. Deven Abrams ’26 stated that while he mostly approved of the resolution, he thought the consequences of academic wrongdoing should be clearer. He explained he was “sick and tired” of voting for resolutions merely because students were expected to agree with their spirit, and told attendees that “If you disagree with something in this resolution, you should vote against it.”

Quirk responded, addressing a “dangerous misconception” that the Honor Council’s “circle” proceedings were “easier” than other Honor Council processes, stressing that while not punitive, they remain an effective method for addressing harm, asking attendees to “please do your homework and let’s talk about this.” Perez-Flesler once again highlighted the importance of student involvement in crafting the language of the code and directly responded to Abrams’s statement, arguing that voting against a resolution because of a few aspects is a “meaningless value statement.” Jackson addressed the notion that the Honor Code is “a list of rules that need to be followed,” clarifying that it is not a penalizing document but “a communal agreement that we all try our best to follow.”

Weill-Jones then called for any friendly or unfriendly amendments, but none were raised. After a brief moment of silence, voting began. The final resolution passed with a few dissenting votes and abstentions.

Ratification of the Honor Code

With all resolutions presented, discussed, and voted on, Fligelman announced that it was time to vote to open ratification of the Honor Code. Based on the passage of the first resolution, this vote would allow for the immediate ratification and implementation of the new Code. The vote to open ratification was presented by Honor Council Co-Chairs Quirk and Michael Pyo ’26, while the Co-Presidents of Students’ Council explained the ratification process. Both the Q&A and pro-con discussion for this vote received no participation. During the response period, Quirk discussed the difficulty of rewriting the Code, thanked all individuals involved in rewriting it, including official CSCAR members and other community contributors, and encouraged students to read the new Code in full.

Following a moment of silence and satellite voting, students in the GIAC voted overwhelmingly to officially open ratification of the new Honor Code. This allowed Fligelman to move on to vote on opening ratification for the Alcohol Policy, which, he explained, can occur alongside ratification of the Code due to the adoption of a new constitution earlier in the day.

Ratification of the Alcohol Policy

Co-Heads of the Joint Student-Administration Alcohol Policy Panel (JSAAPP) Isabela Azumatan-Aceituno ’27 and Jackson Cannon ’28 presented the Alcohol Policy and reviewed its content. They noted that while no updates had been made this semester, minor revisions were expected to be offered during the Spring 2026 Plenary session due to the document’s outdated language.

Fligelman then opened the Q&A and pro-con discussion periods, both of which received no participation, as many students were already standing and packing up in preparation for the conclusion of Plenary. Fligelman reprimanded the prematurely exiting students, reminding them that Plenary was not yet over. He offered the JSAAPP Co-Heads the opportunity to provide additional comments, which they declined. The satellite and in-person voting then began, with Students’ Council members speaking increasingly quickly, likely out of fear of losing quorum before the vote could conclude. The motion to open Alcohol Policy ratification passed before quorum could be lost.

As students filed out of the GIAC, Fligelman encouraged anyone with concerns to approach Students’ Council and “confront us in the spirit of the Code.” Plenary officially concluded at 4:56 p.m., over one hour earlier than initially anticipated by Students’ Council.