UF nominee's DEI position questioned before unanimous approval
Santa Ono, immediate past president of the University of Michigan, won approval from UF trustees Tuesday to lead the University of Florida.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion dominated much of the final vetting discussion between UF trustees and Ono.
UF named Ono as a sole finalist earlier this month. His approval must be confirmed by the Board of Governors of the State University System.
'When I asked the search committee to find someone who can take this great university to the next level, I presented them with a challenging task. However, I am happy to say that I firmly believe they delivered,' Trustees Chair Mori Hosseini said.
Although approved unanimously, Ono faced numerous questions about conflicting statements he's made on contentious political topics, particularly diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as how he has and will deal with antisemitism on college campuses.
'I understand and support what Florida's vision for higher education represents, a decisive move away from ideological bias and activist-driven culture that has come to define too many colleges and universities in this country and abroad,' Ono told trustees Tuesday in Gainesville.
Ono said he supports Florida's ban on state expenditures on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and the overall vehement opposition to anything 'woke.' Although that has not always been his stance. Ono, starting in 2022, oversaw a university that since 2016 spent nearly $250 million on DEI, according to The New York Times.
Ono supported diversity efforts at Michigan at a time when, he said, it was a universal concept in higher education. As University of Michigan president, he supported the institution's 'DEI 2.0' initiative and said the university should 'strive to nurture thoughtful and understanding citizens' and that 'racism is one of America's original sins.'
'For many of us here, conviction matters as much as clarity. I'd like to ask you very directly: How can we be confident that the views that you have articulated today are firmly held and that you will not shift your position over time, particularly in the face of pressure' and changing politics, search committee chair and trustee Rahul Patel asked.
Ono said it took him time to understand the effects of DEI policies. His conviction against DEI now comes from his experience as an administrator and 'hundreds of hours' of conversations with students and faculty, he said, something that's developed over the last approximately 18 months. Before those experiences, he said, he was not an expert on the topic. Now, his conviction is 'rock solid,' Ono said.
Ono told trustees Tuesday that his 'personal views' have 'evolved' and past remarks do not reflect what he believes today.
Despite overseeing the 'DEI 2.0' initiative, it stopped two months ago under his tenure, along with UM's DEI office. The decision, he said, the university shut it down before the outcome of the 2024 presidential election was determined and 'before anyone approached me about the University of Florida presidential search.'
'DEI will not return to the University of Florida during my presidency. I fully support the reform signed into law by Gov. DeSantis and the steps already taken by this board, the board of governors, and this institution,' Ono said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Some Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, a Republican candidate for governor, have contested the candidate. Ono 'does not comport with the values of the state of Florida,' Donalds said in an interview with Fox Business earlier this month. Donalds called for Ono's candidacy to be blocked and for the search to start over.
Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist and trustee at New College, said on X that UF trustees should ask Ono 'hard questions about his recent support for DEI and climate radicalism.'
'I understand why some past statements have raised questions. In hindsight, I see those moments differently now, too,' Ono said.
U.S. Rep. Greg Steube posted to X Tuesday that he's 'not sold' by Ono 'walking back his woke past' and called for the Board of Governors to reject the selection. Last week, Steube sent a letter to UF trustees asking them to reject Ono.
Former Gov. Rick Scott said Steube 'raises important points' and called for an investigation.
DeSantis said earlier this month that he does not know Ono and was not involved in making him a finalist.
The governor said he would let the search play out and 'I don't think that anyone would want to come the University of Florida if your goal was to pursue a woke agenda. You're going to run into a brick wall here in the state of Florida.'
DeSantis' office has played a role in guiding several university presidents to their jobs, including Ono's predecessor, Ben Sasse. DeSantis has made clear his intentions to make universities more conservative.
Ono pledged 'institutional neutrality.'
'I will not use my role to promote personal beliefs on politically or socially contested issues, including climate change,' Ono said.
The recommended total compensation for the president is $3 million, including potential bonuses according to trustee minutes, although his contract remains to be negotiated. Sasse's annual presidential salary was, and still is as a professor, $1 million. He could earn up to $150,000 in performance bonuses, too.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Engadget
an hour ago
- Engadget
Anthropic offers its Claude AI model to the federal government for $1
Anthropic has announced it will offer its Claude AI model to all three branches of the US government for $1, following OpenAI offering an almost identical deal last week. These deals both follow the General Services Administration adding OpenAI, Gemini and Anthropic to a list of approved AI vendors for the federal government. Similar to the OpenAI deal, Anthropic will offer access to its commercial-tier service Claude for Enterprise for a period of one year at a cost of just $1. The offer will also encompass Claude for Government, which supports FedRAMP High workloads, allowing federal workers to use Claude for sensitive unclassified work. Government department or agency leadership can reach out today to gain access. Anthropic is no stranger to working within the federal government. Earlier this summer, the Department of Defense awarded Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and XAI with deals worth up to $200 million to develop military applications. The company made no larger mention of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan, or its requirement that large language models used by the federal government be "free from top-down ideological bias." The tacit understanding is that these LLMs not espouse support for anything the current administration opposes. President Trump even issued an executive order decreeing that AI must not favor "ideological dogmas such as DEI," in order to work with the federal government. This latest deal comes as AI-related companies are increasingly looking to build close relationships with policymakers and the current administration. This week, NVIDIA agreed to a revenue-sharing agreement with the US government in order to sell its H20 AI GPUs to China. The current administration has made no secret of its wish for federal agencies to maximize their use of AI.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
From Greenwashing to Greenhushing: The Rise of ‘Anti-ESG' ETFs
ETFs claiming to shun companies that prioritize environmental, social and governance principles are on the rise. But how different are these strategies from other funds? While the number of so-called 'anti-ESG' ETFs has risen steadily in recent years, with the most recent fund launching just last month, sometimes the difference between them and vehicles that selected financial products without regard to ESG practices is more in the marketing materials than the investment choices. '[Managers] were saying they were going to invest in companies that were not focused on ESG, or they were going to invest and not take into account ESG,' said Hal Lambert, founder of Point Bridge, which launched one of the first overtly conservative funds in 2017. 'But that's how a lot of people invest already.' Analyzing the burgeoning 'anti-woke' market is made even more difficult by the lack of clear standards to define ESG and diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, practices. Used as finance-industry shorthand for what some investors consider liberal ideologies, the terms' meanings vary based on the person or organization employing them. READ ALSO: Like Active Management? Odds of Outperformance Are Slim and Liquid Staking Crypto Isn't a Securities Issue, SEC Says ESG-y Does It The Point Bridge America First ETF (MAGA), which is classified as an anti-ESG fund by Morningstar, launched in 2017 to track companies with PACs supporting Republican candidates. Although the fund did better under President Joe Biden than during President Donald Trump's first term, Lambert said that it's doing 'extremely well' compared to an equally weighted S&P 500. 'I did this because people were out protesting companies. They were upset at Disney, Nike, Target,' he said. 'I'm looking at this going, 'You don't realize you own those stocks in your mutual funds and your 401(k) funds.'' The most recent addition to the landscape is the Azoria 500 Meritocracy ETF, launched last month by James Fishback, an adviser to the Department of Government Efficiency, established earlier this year under President Trump. Fishback said the fund was meant to invest only in firms that don't take gender or race into account when hiring, responding to the anti-DEI backlash that swept through American industry at the start of the second Trump era. Other funds capitalizing on it include: The God Bless America ETF (YALL), launched in 2022, which attempts to avoid investing in companies that engage in DEI initiatives or that fund 'radical social movements,' per the fund's website. The Constrained Capital ESG Orphans ETF (ORFN), also launched in 2022, which tracks companies typically left out of ESG-focused portfolios. The American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF), launched in 2020, which tracks US companies with perceived conservative values. Some funds that label themselves anti-ESG, however, can't really keep the promises they make, Lambert says. Removing companies that prioritize DEI from a fund's holdings, for example, is easier today as more and more companies revoke their DEI policies. Other strategies tend to either ignore certain sectors at the expense of higher returns or track the S&P 500 while charging comparatively high fees. (MAGA's expense ratio is 0.72%.) Still, some of these funds continue to pique investor interest, with Strive's US Energy ETF (DRLL), which tracks the energy sector but is heavily weighted toward oil and natural gas, and the Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL), which invests in what it calls 'biblically aligned' large-caps, each having assets over $300 million. A-Woke, My Love! The retreat from ESG was illustrated last year when only 1% of shareholder resolutions supporting ESG practices across 70 of the largest asset managers received majority support, compared with almost a quarter in 2021. Critics get ESG wrong, however, when they assume it's a matter of 'woke investing' as opposed to due diligence, said Peter Krull, partner at Earth Equity Advisors. ESG investing isn't just about making an impact, but about whether a company's strategy is viable in the long term, he said. A coastal operation in Florida, for example, is susceptible to hurricanes in a way that a midwestern company isn't. Investors are still putting their money in sustainable companies without advertising it, he added, a practice known as 'greenhushing.' 'They understand the importance of actually moving beyond the fundamentals, beyond a P/E ratio, or a company's growth rate, or debt levels,' Krull said. 'It's looking to see what other risks aren't being addressed in fundamentals or traditional equity research that can give a leg up over somebody else.' Research suggests greenhushing may not be as effective as it seems, since some businesses weren't invested in sustainable causes in the first place. Rather, they've simply stopped claiming to be engaging in sustainable operations. Companies like Nestlé and Nike dropped their 'previously unsubstantiated' commitments to carbon neutrality, according to an analysis from the nonprofit NewClimate Institute. A lack of standardization also precludes any true clarity about what is pro- or anti-ESG. Ratings on the research site Sustainalytics, for example, are going to differ from those on MSCI or another platform. Krull said his firm is tasked with deciding how they're 'going to tell the story in a way that people will pick up the phone or send us an email and say, 'Hey, we want to work with you guys' … Just saying we do ESG doesn't honestly tell a damn thing.' In These Polarized Times Launching anti-ESG and anti-woke ETFs is simply the latest attempt by firms and asset managers to take advantage of an increasingly politically charged environment, said Maggie Kulyk, founder of Chicory Wealth, which focuses on socially responsible investing. 'If there are firms that dabbled in trying to offer some product that had ESG slapped on it, but weren't very serious about it to begin with and are now exiting — fine,' Kulyk said. 'You weren't really committed to the thing to begin with.' The labels have become more extreme, but the underlying holdings mostly stay the same, she said. 'You've got a fund that includes things like controversial weapons and civilian firearms and tobacco, for example, but [it] still has 82% of its holdings with at least a 30% female board representation,' Kulyk said. 'If you're really anti-woke, why don't you get those out of there?' Krull predicts that investments in overtly ideological funds will continue to ramp up as political polarization drives investor decision-making. He said his firm, which also focuses on socially responsible investing, saw its AUM go up faster during Trump's first term than it did during Obama's time in office because of people who felt politically powerless trying to make a difference through sustainable investing. The same thing happened this time around, he added: 'I wouldn't be surprised if you saw … a divergence of these two philosophies.' This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive exclusive news and analysis of the rapidly evolving ETF landscape, built for advisors and capital allocators, subscribe to our free ETF Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders
The Impact On Organizations Post Trump's DEI Executive Orders getty A major change in U.S. policy is forcing many organizations to rethink their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. In January this year, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders that formally reversed federal DEI mandates. These orders directed agencies to dismantle internal DEI offices, eliminate DEI training programs, and withdraw equity-focused funding, calling such efforts 'discriminatory' and 'ideologically driven.' For over a decade, DEI has influenced the way teams are built, people are supported, and communities are included in decision-making. It drove innovation, improved team performance, and helped people from overlooked backgrounds feel seen, heard, and included. Trump's new orders push back against DEI, replacing it with 'merit-based' hiring, raising concern about what's lost in the process. The shift left many teams unsure of how to move forward, especially those who've built their culture around inclusion. Organizations are reassessing policies, directing legal and cultural shifts, and working to preserve inclusive values even as federal priorities move in a different direction. Trump's move to dismantle DEI efforts began with two executive orders signed within days of taking office, setting off immediate ripple effects across federal agencies and beyond. These orders marked an aggressive reversal of long-standing federal policies , affecting not just government operations but also private contractors who rely on government partnerships. Executive Order 14151, titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," directed the termination of what it calls "discriminatory programs" going by the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The order instructed agencies to shut down DEI offices, cancel equity-centered grants and contracts, and eliminate DEI performance requirements for employees, contractors, and grantees. Federal agencies were given broad mandates to dismantle these programs "to the maximum extent allowed by law." Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," took a different approach by revoking several prior orders focused on equal employment opportunity and workplace diversity. This order directed agency heads to submit reports by May 20, 2025, identifying "the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners" in their sectors and outlining specific steps to deter DEI programs that might constitute illegal discrimination. A third order, Executive Order 14281, signed in April, aimed to "eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible." This targets a legal theory that holds employers liable for policies that disproportionately affect protected groups, even without intentional discrimination. The administration frames these changes as a return to "merit-based" hiring, arguing that identity-focused practices are discriminatory and unlawful. However, the orders don't define "illegal DEI," creating uncertainty for organizations trying to understand what's permissible. This ambiguity has prompted many companies to scale back or completely eliminate their DEI programs, even as legal challenges to the orders work their way through the courts. The effects of Trump's executive orders are moving beyond policy changes into measurable workplace outcomes. A July 2025 survey from , of 965 U.S. companies with active DEI programs before November 2024, reveals the tangible consequences organizations are facing. The numbers show immediate shifts in hiring and retention patterns. One in five companies has eliminated DEI initiatives entirely, with 74% citing the changed political climate as their primary reason. Among companies that cut programs, 57% report hiring fewer people from underrepresented groups. The decline is particularly pronounced for women of color (37% decrease), LGBTQIA+ candidates (33% decrease), and men of color (33% decrease). By comparison, only 12% reported decreased hiring of white men. The workplace culture impacts are equally significant. Nearly half of the companies that reduced DEI efforts report declining employee morale, while 36% struggle with retention of diverse talent. Leadership representation has also shifted, with 30% noting fewer people of color in leadership roles and 24% reporting fewer women in leadership positions. Perhaps most concerning, 18% of organizations report increased incidents of workplace discrimination or bias following DEI program cuts. 25% acknowledge reputational damage, suggesting the changes extend beyond internal operations to external perceptions. The survey reveals divided opinions among business leaders about these changes. Some view DEI elimination as removing divisive elements, with one respondent noting it "restored a sense of fairness." Others express disappointment, with leaders describing the loss of "safe spaces" and being worried about being "worse off as a company." These patterns suggest the executive orders have created a ripple effect that extends across public agencies, private companies, nonprofits, and educational institutions. The changes are reshaping not just policies but fundamental aspects of how organizations attract talent, build leadership, and maintain workplace culture. The executive orders affect government agencies, federal contractors, private companies with federal funding, nonprofits, and educational institutions tied to federal grants. Even organizations without direct contracts are experiencing ripple effects as partners and industry peers adjust policies to comply. Organizations that eliminated DEI programs report widespread morale issues. Employees who valued these initiatives feel abandoned, making them more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere. Recruitment has become more challenging, particularly with younger workers, while unclear communication about policy changes has damaged internal trust. Companies that cut DEI programs are losing employees , especially women, black professionals, and other underrepresented groups who prioritize inclusive workplaces. Hiring for these groups has slowed, and fewer younger candidates are applying. Internally, trust has weakened, opportunities feel less equitable, and problem-solving has suffered due to reduced diverse perspectives. Without DEI initiatives, companies struggle to attract diverse talent. Skilled candidates who value inclusion often bypass employers that don't demonstrate clear commitment to equity, intensifying competition for talent in an already tight market. Stepping away from DEI can damage both public perception and internal culture. Externally, organizations may appear out of touch, hurting brand image and stakeholder trust. Internally, the absence of DEI structures can allow bias or discrimination to go unchecked, weakening morale and creating unsafe work environments. Some companies, like Meta and McDonald's, have scaled back DEI programs amid political pressures. Others, including Costco, Apple, and Microsoft, maintain their inclusion commitments. Cutting DEI risks backlash from progressive employees, investors, and customers, while maintaining programs may provoke conservative opposition. Organizations must navigate these competing pressures, particularly as black consumers' buying power is projected to nearly double by 2030, underscoring the business case for inclusion. The Trump administration's executive orders have created significant uncertainty for organizations across all sectors. Federal agencies are intensifying enforcement of civil rights laws, potentially creating legal risks for companies that maintain DEI programs. This has left businesses facing a difficult decision. Some are dismantling programs to avoid potential scrutiny, while others are maintaining their diversity commitments despite the political shift. Organizations don't have to navigate these changes blindly. Clear, honest communication with employees and stakeholders helps maintain trust during this transition period. Companies should continue focusing on essential practices like fair hiring, equitable career development, and respectful workplace policies, regardless of what these efforts are called. Legal reviews of existing programs can help identify potential compliance issues while preserving inclusive practices. The key is balancing political realities with organizational values and goals. Companies that stay committed to inclusion, even if they rebrand their approach, can continue attracting diverse talent and driving innovation. Those that abandon these efforts entirely risk losing valuable employees and damaging relationships with customers and stakeholders who value diversity. Success requires both flexibility and strategic thinking. Organizations that communicate transparently, review their policies carefully, and maintain inclusive cultures will be better positioned to weather this period of change while keeping the benefits of diverse, engaged teams.
