The Ubyssey is not particularly impressed with Jasper Lorien and Dylan Evans. One is a candidate who may lead to drama and discord, and the other is wholly lacking in ambition. Honestly, we’re not sure we are voting for the right candidate.
Editor's Note: The new Editorial Board is a pilot project launched for this year's elections. From now on, that term refers to the group of journalists who write their views as a collective in the newspaper's name, linking us with centuries of newspaper tradition.
Our pilot Editorial Board consisted of Features Editor Elena Massing, Politics Columnist Maya Tommasi and AMS Columnist Quyen Schroeder, who served as the board's chair. Over the past few weeks, they contacted every candidate, held interviews, attended debates and studied platforms before deliberating among themselves who The Ubyssey will endorse. Their deliberations were private and isolated from the rest of the newsroom, including from me, the Opinion Editor, until drafts had been filed. Like all of our journalists, they practiced according to the Canadian Association of Journalists' Ethics Guidelines.
— Spencer Izen, Deputy Managing Editor and Opinion Editor
Recent years have seen significant tumult within executive teams: the indefinite leave of President Esmé Decker in 2023, the removal of VP AUA Drédyn Fontana in 2024, and the resignations of VP External Ayesha Irfan and VP Finance Gavin Fung-Quon in 2025. We’d like to avoid a repeat in 2026. The president sets the culture of the AMS by directing and supporting the other portfolios. Frequently, overstepping bounds leads to bad blood. Lorien’s platform is undeniably ambitious, but clashes with some proposals of many vice-president candidates. One example is Lorien’s lack of urgency in reducing the AMS deficit (and their willingness to increase it), which directly clashes with the promises of VP finance candidates. During the debates, Lorien didn’t promise there would “never be any resignations,” but did commit to ensuring there wouldn't be any on account of issues "caused by the culture of the AMS” under their presidency.
Lorien’s vision was ambitious and their platform provides for multiple policy objectives. While none seem uniquely unachievable, the lack of disciplined policy prioritization left unclear what a Lorien presidency would start with and if their ambition will go from being an asset to a liability. They proposed increasing mental health coverage under the AMS/GSS Health and Dental plan from $1,250 to $1,500. A worthwhile move, but one that risks destabilizing the plan’s finances. Evans hasn’t mentioned increasing health coverage, but does want to create a “formal review cycle” to ensure the plan’s stability. This is a microcosm of the difference between their campaigns. Lorien is willing to take big, but potentially destabilizing swings. Evans plays it a little too safe, afraid of inciting any instability.
Evans is sorely lacking in political vision. Most memorable was his promise of “bringing fun to campus” and his description of his role as AMS president as being the “megaphone” of the student body. These policies were not memorable for any reason other than their nebulousness; while somewhat flashy, they ultimately mean nothing. Outside political sloganeering, Evans joined in the AMS tradition of promising exam and syllabi databases. His class notes database proposal was a Dylan Evans original, but the others were recycled. While many candidates propose an exam or syllabi database, we don’t think Evans brings much to the proposal.
When asked about his unambitious platform, Evans said there is “ambition in supporting students” and maintaining stability within the society. Evans was adamant on “not rocking the ship and shaking things up.” While we appreciate the need for stability, we fear Evans’ presidency will be one of stagnation. He repeatedly criticized this year’s pace of governance changes at AMS Council, claiming councillors struggled to “follow a lot of the changes” because of their frequency. Moving quickly and breaking things is hardly an effective governance strategy, but a couple code changes every two weeks is hardly a breakneck pace. More relevant was Evans’ suggestion to include a “one-page” explainer of each code change — a response to students' misunderstanding policy changes. In 2023, rationale documents were published alongside code and policy changes; Evans’ proposal to bring them back is a good one.
Though broadly unimpressed, we recognize that Evan’s experience has demonstrated some promise. He was the Forestry Undergraduate Society president, and as VP admin, he implemented a clubs cap — a bold move given its unpopularity. His textbook exchange program may prove valuable if well-executed. But given the pace of the AMS, it may be multiple years out. Outside this policy and his propensity for awkward messaging, not much else brought smiles to our faces.
We were particularly disappointed in Evans’ stances on Palestine. Though he promised to “follow student-petitioned referenda to a ‘T,’” Evans committed to doing no more than the bare minimum. Last year’s referendum on divestment received more yes-votes than any candidate — by at least 2,500. It should be clear that students want their union to advocate for Palestinian human rights. In stark contrast to the absence of Palestine on Evans’ online platform, this is where Lorien shines. Their decidedly jargony call for “moral clarity” seems aligned with students’ demands. They propose the AMS take clear stances on important political issues, like the genocide in Gaza, reconciliation and other topics of equity, diversity and inclusion. A move toward a student union unafraid of echoing its students' opinions would definitely be a welcome change — especially in contrast to Evans’ belief that the AMS should be “as apolitical as possible.”
Ultimately, we were not thrilled by either candidate, but we believe Lorien is the better choice. We invite the student body to vote as we will: for the best of a bad bunch.
Editorials are opinion essays, and while they represent the views of the Editorial Board, they may not speak for every person at our newspaper. They are subject, however, to the same standard of fact-checking as anything else in our report.
This article was updated at 4:20 p.m. to clarify Lorien's comments about resignations.
