Leah HennigAt the International Students’ Association (ISA) forum, Board of Governors representative candidates were asked questions relating to immigration caps and information transparency — policy decisions with immediate consequences for international students.
Amaan Khan grounded his remarks in personal experience. Describing the ISA as his “home away from home,” he tied his platform to housing affordability, transit safety, and the financial realities of paying significantly higher tuition. His emphasis on travel time, safety concerns, and exclusion from campus life reflected themes frequently raised in ISA advocacy spaces.
When answering whether the university planned adequately for federal immigration caps, Khan acknowledged limits to the BoG representative’s direct influence, stating that a single BoG rep cannot directly alter federal policy. Instead, he argued that the university could lobby more aggressively at provincial and federal levels. His responses once again lean heavily on consultation over confederation. What marked growth from earlier forums was his reference to already working with the Dean of Students (DoS), Ravina Sanghera, and the plan to sit on the University’s Safety and Security Committee.
When discussing transparency, he again pointed to structured post-meeting summaries and ongoing engagement with student groups as the primary tools for connecting Board decisions to student understanding.
In response to the possibility of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) being removed from recruitment policy, Khan emphasized the limits of a single BoG vote and focused instead on preserving equality in practice. He argued that even if formal language is rolled back, effective consultation with Board members ahead of decisions could help ensure marginalized students remain protected in how policies are applied. His answer left open how equity is enforced when policy language itself is removed.
Tala Mojarrad approached this ISA forum through shared vulnerability. Her remarks emphasized displacement, financial instability, and the emotional weight of studying abroad, repeatedly returning to the idea that the international students carry both the university’s revenues and its diversity. Her opening statement framed accessibility broadly, from food insecurity to navigating winter grocery access, and positioned mentorship and peer support as central solutions. Mojarrad’s communication strategy similarly focused on accessibility.
Where Mojarrad stood out most was on transparency. She focused on how information is shared more than any other candidate. Arguing that students no longer engage with long form media or static websites the way people used to, she positions short-form, digestible content as the most realistic way to communicate the Board’s decisions. She proposed collaborating with student creators to communicate Board decisions.
Mojarrad approached the EDI question again, through lived experience. She argued that if formal EDI mechanisms are rolled back, her focus would be on creating alternative pathways that ensure marginalized students still gain access to opportunities. The answer reflected her border platform emphasis on access and empowerment, though it remained less clear how those alternative pathways would be implemented within the Board’s authority.
Unlike previous forums, where some of her larger platform ideas remained conceptually broad, her transparency strategy at ISA felt more concrete. She outlined how communication should be improved — through timely, shareable updates designed for the platforms students already use.
Janardhun Alagarsamy Vignesh took his usual, structural approach. Noting affordability, immigration delays, and housing conditions in his opening statement as international student issues that require oversight. His three campaign pillars — oversight, sustainability, and advocacy with purpose — translated well at the ISA forum. Oversight meant scrutinizing tuition increases and revenue models that treat international students as financial offsets. Sustainability meant long-term housing and immigration support structures. Advocacy with purpose relating to specific measures such as visa clinics and crisis supports.
When discussing how he will ensure international students understand what happens inside Board meetings, Alagarsamy Vignesh emphasized trust mainly, as he “cannot always promise full transparency.” Acknowledging confidentiality limits while arguing the role requires converting complex Board information into accessible student-focused impact.
Alagarsamy Vignesh argued that equity commitments would signal regression and committed to advocating for EDI principles to remain embedded in hiring policy. If unsuccessful, he said he would push for reinforcing measures to preserve those principles. Among the candidates, his answer most directly addressed the policy itself rather than its downstream effects.
Across forums, his strength has been consistency. At the ISA, that consistency translated into proposals that felt aligned with the audience’s concerns.
The ISA forum did not produce sharp ideological divides. Instead, it revealed some specific distinctions in how the candidates plan to share what happens behind the Board’s doors.
