Alumni Field House
February 16, 2003
I. Moment of Silence
II. Scott and Will welcomed everyone to Plenary and thanked them for braving the elements and the snow. Scott announced that following Plenary the 300th Episode of the Simpsons would be showed in Sharpless Auditorium on the big screen and reminded everyone that classes for 2/17/03 were cancelled.
III. Rules of Order
a. Will gave everyone three minutes to look over the Rules of order and examine the agenda.
b. Scott announced that their would be five minutes to pose questions on the Rules of Order/Agenda. No questions were asked.
c. Scott called for amendments to the Rules of Order or Agenda. No one called for any amendments.
IV. Jim Duncan and Aron Michalski presented the first resolution named “Slash n’Burn: A Restructuring of the Honor Code.”
a. Jim wants to shorten the honor code in a major way. Currently the code is 18 pages and that it used to be a paragraph when it was first written. Jim further explained that the code should be for ideals not procedure. Aron wants to return the honor code to its ideals, the procedure would be reorganized into the constitution. Jim explained that whatever honor code is approved at Plenary, every word would still be in the code, but it would be reorganized in a different way. Jim further explained that the most detailed of the repetitive paragraphs would be included in the code. Aron announced that if anyone is interested in working with the committee to restructure the code, they should let him know.
b. Question and Answers
i. Matt Weiss asked about how the procedural information in the honor code would be changed in the constitution. Jim explained that the constitution can be ammended at Plenary in the spring.
ii. Ryan Coletti – Asked a technical question regarding how the procedures regarding trials would be affected, and how it would affect how incoming freshman accept the code. Jim said that people are not being held less accountable to the code, what you can’t do plagerism etc. still exists in the code, however how people who allegedly broke would be dealt with is in the constitution.
iii. Jon Wakely asked about ratification cards. Aron explained that we would be ratifying the ideals. Aron explained that changes to the procedure would not have to ratified after plenary with the green cards, but only at plenary.
iv. Ben Hamm asked about if the details for the code that would be put in the constitution are not important for incoming freshman to read. Jim explained that every student should know what could happen to them, but people should focus on what they should do.
v. Will called for a vote to extend the Q/A period. It was not extended.
c. Pro/Con Debate
i. Pro – Julien Colvin explained that it is important that as many incoming freshman as possible should read the code, and that the new resolution would allow them to focus on ideals.
ii. Con – Liz Bacon continued the debate with a con statement
iii. Pro – Brooks Ambrose
iv. Con – Jon Wakely – the most controversial parts of the honor code is the procedure and they need to be discussed at plenary every year. He said the procedures would not reflect the largest possible population of Haverford.
v. Pro – Zack Weathers – The code is what we believe is honorable. Procedure is important to the running of the college, but not being honorable. Pear it down to the honor part of the code.
vi. Con - Mark Robinson – The trial is such an important part of the honor code, the procedures should remain in the code. The ratification cards should not just ratify ideals but the whole system.
vii. Pro - Joanna B – The fact that the constitution and honor code are always ratified together the procedures can be put in the constitution. I didn’t come to Haverford for trials, I came for the honor code.
viii. Con – Greg Jones – Just because the new code will be shorter, it doesn’t mean that more people will read it. Important procedures are being removed from the code with diminishing power.
ix. Pro – Rich Carthas – Some people get to caught up in procedures and don’t focus on the ideals. By narrowing the code, people are more likely to understand and follow the code, seeing what it is really about.
x. Con – Molly Glen – The reason that most procedure is in the appendices is that it is being organized in that way already.
xi. Pro – Adam Kern - The whole point of the resolution is to understand the honor code. If people don’t choose to come to plenary they are giving up their right to ratify it.
xii. Con –
xiii. Pro – Ben Hamm – Building on Adam, worrying about 40% as the number of quorum is a questioning of quorum not the honor code.
xiv. Scott called to extend the pro-con debate. The debate was ended.
d. Response to the Pro/Con Debate
i. Jim explained that rules are important, but they are not less important by being put into the constitution. The constitution is followed for many other things on campus. Reading 10 pages of rules takes away from the true ideals of the code. Aron responded to Molly, that most of the procedures were put into appendices but that the honor code failed to be ratified by the ratification cards. It is most important to focus on the ideals. Jim responded to Greg, that the code is confusing with all of its procedures, and it should be simplified so that everyone who wants to read it can read it.
e. Will called for unfriendly amendments.
i. No unfriendly amendments were presented.
f. Will called for a moment of silence before the vote.
g. Vote was conducted by ballot. Attendance at the time of the vote was 561 students. Scott announced that the vote PASSED with 91% of the students in support the resolution.
V. Second Resolution was not presented by Matt Kearny. It was renounced.
VI. Third Resolution presented by Brooks Ambrose regarding community building. We most work to ensure the continued growth of the community. He is asking us to say explicitly what we already do... show trust, concern and respect, as well as be committed to building our community. Connecting the people through organization is honorable. Get community building outside the ideology and respect everyone’s opinions. More forums and go to collections.
a. Question and Answers
i. Jennifer Cartman- accountability of the Honor Code. If standards are so broad, why are they put in the Honor Code. Brooks wants to set a guideline for community standards. Not necessarily policing, just saying what we should do.
ii. Joe Sacks- Is it a suggestion or does it transcend that? Brooks would love it to transcend that but he will not impose his ideology on the college. He just wants us to recognize this.
Scott ended the Q&A session.
b. Pro&Con Debate
i. Pro-Vann Jones- He thinks it is embarrasing going to basketball games because people do not go. He thinks it is about time that we should support each other. If we put it in the Honor Code then it says that we all support each other.
ii. Con- Evelyn Miles- If doing our academic best is not in the code, then why should doing our social best be in the code. She doesnt feel like something like this should drag everyone to fulfill this added sense of responsibility. She thinks the code will not fix this.
iii. Pro- Julia- She thinks we should be forced to give back to the community and she thinks it is great.
iv. Con- Carl Bloominthal- The Honor Code has a certain amount of expectation and setting expectations for extracurricular standards is not right.
v. Pro- Joanna B.- Supporting the community is special to uphold things. Encouraging to go to activities.
vi. Con- Esther Glick- Having this in the Honor Code will not change our behavior and it is not enforcible. We are sprend so thin in supporting all the events that it is not necessary.
vii. Pro- Emily- It hurts to not Have people at the concerts and she thinks that nobody appreciates the fact that nobody goes to supprt her. She thinks that it being in the Honor Code it will make people feel like they will want to do these things more.
viii. Con- Ben Hamm- While he thinks this is a good idea, it should not apply to the Honor Code. It attempts to impose a substance to the community and should not say “you have to go”. We should consider why people arent going.
ix. Pro- Carol Chang- The fact that someone thinks there needs to be a resolution to encourage community, says something in itself. She doesnt think people should feel obligated to go, but people should do it for themselves.
x. Con- Shane Danaher- He thinks that we should be frightened to add fire power to the already hungry community.
xi. Pro- Victoria Vargis- She thinks that this is simply another ideal that should be implemented and aspire to.
Scott asked to vote to extend pro-con debate. Extended by five minutes.
xii. Con- Evelyn Miles- social integrity is much more of a slippery fish.
xiii. Pro- Matt- Responded to Esther and he thinks that Brooks would not want this passed if he thought that we already weere a community. Passing this would officially state our dedicationm to the Honor Code.
xiv. Con- Sharon- Already a lot of guilt at Haverford and this would put more guilt on people who are brought down by work and she doesnt want people showing up at events that dont really want to be there.
xv. Pro- Jim Duncan- Not mandatory and not policing.
xvi. Con- Julien- this is dishonest
Pro Con Debate done.
c. Response to pro con debate by Brooks.
i. As a community we are able to define what we think is honorable and say yes to that this is important because a more active community benefits everyone. Building a community is hard and this is one tool to increase the potency of our community. he sees no downside. Dont go if you dont want to go, but he wants you to want to go.
ii. Call for unfriendly amendments. We have one unfriendly amendment. –Cole Sorrelgreen ‘04
iii. Time to get 75 Unfriendly amendment signatures extended seven minutes.
iv. Cole explains unfriendly amendment: Moves the proposed resolution to Article IV. Adds new section 10, ‘Duty of Members of the Students Association’ and change name of article IV to ‘Executive Powers and Duties of all Members of Student Association.’ It will no longer be a violation of the Honor Code and you can no longer be confronted or taken to trial. He thinks HC has neither jurisdiction nor the right to try such ‘violations.’ Cole’s resolution doesn’t change the substance; it simply changes the placement to make the resolution no longer a policing clause.
v. Pro-Con Debate
1. Pro—Gregg Reed ’06. By moving to the Constitution, it will maintain the essence and the spirit but remove problem with enforceability. Anything in the code should be able to be regulated.
2. Con—Brooks. This is a statement of the College. It should be in the Honor Code. It loses its usefulness if we move it.
3. Pro—Stu Evans ’03. No action. No community. I encourage passing wherever it is.
4. Con—William Mins. We want the ideals to be in the Honor Code. We just passed something placing only ideals in the code. This is an ideal.
5. Pro—Aaron Miller. Important to have in honor code but not there.
6. Con—Sonia ’06. Other things in the honor code aren’t regulated. Brooks resolution is no different than much of what is already in the code.
7. Pro—Cole. Statement of Honor. Ideals of the college are not in the code. Ideals of the honor code are in the code.
8. Con—Brooks. The best way for this attempt for action to succeed is through putting it in the code. There are many benefits and few negative possible outcomes.
9. Pro—Lauren.
10. Con—Nathan Vogel’06. Parts of the Honor Code now in the Constitution are strictly procedural. This resolution is strictly not procedural and therefore belongs in the code itself.
vi. Unfriendly Ammendment failed.
vii. Vote on resolution #3. The resolution failed. 45% vote
VII Resolution 4
I. Presented by lauren hradecky ’05. This resolution fixes inconsistencies between practice and procedures because basically the code hasn’t been updated for a while and there have been changes that are simply not reflected in the code.
a Question/Answer Period
i. zack withers- does it make any changes to code?
Lauren--it does in places that Lauren indicated and made it consistent through out. No content change, just visual change, except for article 4 section 4: change to 48 consecutive hours for executive elections from two days
ii. Nika Trufano ’05--is there is a little rule saying that we have to clean up after every resolution
Lauren--no, in theory.
iii. Zack Withers....were there any other legislative changes?
Lauren responds: not sure...
b. Pro and con debate
i. Pro: joe sacks ‘05 praise to Lauren and Scott
ii.Con: Mark Blitzer ‘03
iii.Pro: Zack this just is logical and should be done
c. Lauren responds: thanks for “proing” it
d. Call for unfriendly amendments nope
e. MOS
f. Vote for Resolution, 550 people present at time of vote
94 % voted for the resolution. It successfully passed.
VII. Steve Spaulding and Mary Greene present the honor code for ratification.
Honor Code is a document over 100 years old serving as underlying foundation for Haverford. we the students are solely responsible for the code and every year the community has come together to re-evaluate our commitment to it. Now is the time to do it.
a. Question/Answer Section. none.
b. Pro/con debate 15 minutes.
i.Pro: Smiddie ’04
ii. Con: Julien Colvin ’05 – A group of students should not determine the academic fate of a student, expressing the thoughts of one of his freshman.
iii. Pro: Cole Sorrelgreen ’04 – We all worked hard to make this document better, not it should be ratified.
iv. Con: Jeremy Pober ’03 He is being a voice for those people who get shut down every year. Encourages a walk out.
v. Pro: Ben Wolff ’04 Living document, seen proof that it is alive.
vi. Con: Aron Michalson we should give it up for a year to see how community would live---think about it
vii. Pro: Evelyn Miles in support of council
ix. Con: Jeff Barton
x. Pro: Anirudh Suri ’06 wants his job because he is on Honor Council!!
xi. Pro/con ends.
c. Vote on ratification.
Honor Code was ratified. 95% of the students ratified the code.
VII. Final Moment of Silence
These minutes reflect the views of SC and HC Co-Secretaries Miriam Achtenberg, Liz Bacon, Jonathan Debrich and Beth Krouse. Any questions e-mail exec@haverford.edu
