logo
UF nominee's DEI position questioned before unanimous approval

UF nominee's DEI position questioned before unanimous approval

Yahoo27-05-2025

The University of Florida main campus in Gainesville. (Photo by Jay Waagmeester/Florida Phoenix)
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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness
Opinion - The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness

'Trump made me do it.' Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it. For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The 'TDI defense' is born. Of course, they did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action. Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along. Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses. At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration's orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice. In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI. The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to 'have them at hello,' as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends. Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on 'institutional neutrality.' Yet, even Administrators emboldened by the TDI defense are finding resistance in their ranks. For example, UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: 'I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.' She added, 'I love breaking rules.' The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, 'We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.' Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for 'reform,' their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause. While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to 'equity' or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions. Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful. This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majority groups who are discriminated against. For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law. Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI. In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that 'to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.' That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has 'lost touch with voters.' Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag
Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag

Yahoo

time5 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Corporate support for Pride is dwindling nationwide. In NC, it's a mixed bag

Pride Month has long been an occasion for companies and institutions to display their support for the LGBTQ+ community, whether it be for profit or for principle. It's often a trivial gesture, but it can have a meaningful impact for a community that had long been relegated to the shadows of society. But more recently, that support has waned amid a regressive political climate that has made many companies rethink their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. A survey conducted by the national risk management firm Gravity Research found that around 39% of companies said they would reduce their engagement around Pride Month this year. Some of the top reasons for the change were the Trump administration, conservative activists and conservative policymakers, the survey found. Major corporations, including Mastercard and Pepsi, have pulled their sponsorship of major Pride events or avoided the topic on social media. In North Carolina, the results are mixed. Take Lowe's, which is based in Mooresville. Lowe's hasn't yet acknowledged Pride Month on its social media — a marked difference from past years when it openly embraced the occasion. That's not unexpected, given that Lowe's has already announced an end to many of its DEI initiatives. Last year, the company said it would no longer participate in surveys conducted by LGBTQ+ groups and ended its support of outside events like festivals, parades and fairs. (Lowe's had previously been a longtime supporter of Charlotte's annual Pride festival.) But surprising or not, it's reflective of a growing trend away from publicly embracing the LGBTQ+ community. Charlotte-based Bank of America also has remained quiet about Pride so far. In past years, Bank of America has been vocal about celebrating the occasion on social media and honoring its LGBTQ+ employees with the hashtag #BofAPride, but that support has been absent this year. Compare that with Truist, which posted in celebration of Pride on its Facebook and Instagram accounts. For North Carolina's professional sports teams, the results are mixed, too. While the Carolina Panthers and Charlotte Hornets both celebrated the start of Pride on social media, the Carolina Hurricanes have not. In fact, the team has remained largely silent about Pride since 2023 — the Hurricanes are one of just a handful NHL teams to not acknowledge it this year — a decision that has disappointed many fans who feel a simple acknowledgment of the occasion is not too much to ask. The same goes for the state's largest cities. The city of Charlotte posted on its social media accounts at the beginning of Pride, in addition to updating its profile picture to a rainbow version of the city's crown logo. The cities of Raleigh and Greensboro, however, did not. This move toward silence comes at a time when things like Pride celebrations and flags are under attack from lawmakers across the state. Legislation has been introduced at the state level that would effectively ban the display of Pride flags in government buildings, while some counties have passed ordinances governing public events that some interpret as targeting Pride events or drag performances. Of course, a social media post is just that: a social media post. It's not going to defeat anti-LGBTQ legislation, or save gay kids from being bullied, or change the country's attitude towards transgender people — at least not on its own. From some companies, it's just a lot of empty words or glorified virtue signaling. But public support for any marginalized group can be meaningful, especially when it happens on a large scale. And when institutions cower in the face of political pressure to stay silent, they're just letting the bullies win. It makes real change all the more difficult. Ultimately, it's not the silence that is the problem. It's the fact that the silence is new — a sudden absence of the public support and acceptance that existed before. It feels like another step backward during a time when progress feels like it's constantly stuck in reverse.

The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness
The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness

The Hill

time6 hours ago

  • The Hill

The ‘Trump did it' defense: Colleges' and companies' new excuse to roll back wokeness

'Trump made me do it.' Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it. For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The 'TDI defense' is born. They did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action. Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along. Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses. At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration's orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice. In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI. The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to 'have them at hello,' as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends. Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on 'institutional neutrality.' But then UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: 'I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.' She added, 'I love breaking rules.' The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her. However, Pugh's approach to rules in general has long been followed by college administrators. After the Supreme Court declared that universities like Harvard and UNC were engaging in racial discrimination in admissions, some schools set out to eliminate the overt uses of race while seeking to achieve the same results covertly. The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, 'We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.' Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for 'reform,' their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause. While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to 'equity' or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions. Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined longstanding claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful. This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majorities who are discriminated against. For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law. Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI. In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that 'to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.' That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has 'lost touch with voters.' Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive. The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done. Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of 'The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store