State board rejects University of Florida pick amid conservative backlash
The Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono to serve as the president of the University of Florida on Tuesday amid backlash from conservatives over Ono's past stances on diversity, equity and inclusion on (DEI) college campuses.
The board, which oversees the state's university system, voted 10-6 to block the former University of Michigan president from serving as the University of Florida president weeks after the university's board of trustees voted unanimously in favor of Ono.
The move from the state's Board of Governors marks the first time in its 22-year history that it has rejected a university's presidential selection.
The board's rejection means that the university will have to start its presidential selection process over.
Ono faced pushback from conservatives, as well as members of Florida's congressional delegation, over his past stances on DEI, which has become a target of the Trump administration. Last week, the president's son Donald Trump Jr. called on 'every single member' of the Board of Governors to vote against Ono.
However, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), who appointed most of the state's Board of Governors, avoided jumping directly into the fray over Ono's nomination.
'We have expectations about what we want in higher education. We don't want it to be a fountain of activism and leftist indoctrination and if you go in that direction, then you will not have support to continue,' DeSantis said at a press conference last week. 'People have pointed out a lot of statements that he has made that are not exactly what we're looking for in a state where woke goes to die and I cringe at some of these statements.'
The chair of the university's board of trustees, Mori Hosseini, a DeSantis ally, backed Ono as the pick to lead the university.
Ono wrote in a recent op-ed that his views on the issue have evolved.
'Like many, I supported what I believed to be the original intent of DEI — ensuring equal opportunity and fairness for every student,' he wrote in Inside Higher Ed earlier this month. 'That's something on which most everyone agrees. But over time, I saw how DEI became something else — more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's decision could lead to a new era of ‘reverse discrimination' lawsuits
Good morning! A Supreme Court decision yesterday on a case of workplace discrimination could have major impacts on the employment landscape and will affect HR departments across the country. In a unanimous decision, the court sided with Marlean Ames, a former Ohio state government employee who sued her employer after she was passed over for two promotions that went to gay coworkers instead. Ames argued that she was discriminated against for work opportunities because of her heterosexuality. The case first appeared in the sixth circuit court, which ruled against Ames citing the higher standard of proof for discrimination that must be met by members of majority groups, such as men, white people, or heterosexual people. That higher standard is referred to as 'background circumstances,' and plaintiffs must show additional supporting evidence that they were the victims of discrimination. But the Supreme Court's ruled that the additional burden for people from majority groups is unconstitutional, and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The decision wasn't a surprise, and had been anticipated by legal experts. But they tell Fortune that the ruling will likely lead to more reverse discrimination cases against employers in the near future. 'We should expect to see this trend continue, and see an uptick in these so-called reverse discrimination claims brought by men who are not members of historically disadvantaged groups,' Michael Steinberg, a labor and employment attorney at firm Seyfarth Shaw, tells Fortune. The case comes at a particularly fraught time when it comes to the legal landscape of the workplace in general. A combination of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action and Trump's executive orders targeting affirmative action have made companies extra cautious about their programs and protocols around diversity initiatives. The Ames case was not centered on DEI policies, but two Supreme Court Justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, specifically referenced DEI in their opinions. David Glasgow, executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University, says it's the first instance, since Trump took office, that justices have put their stances around DEI in writing. And he adds it could 'encourage potential plaintiffs to see shifts in the wind and then follow them right to bring future claims.' You can read more about yesterday's Supreme Court decision here. Brit This story was originally featured on
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
What our faith should tell us about DEI
When we have wronged others, common decency demands that we right the wrong. This means that diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are not simply one more left-right spat in the ongoing culture wars. For many of us in the faith community, they are the attempt to make required atonement for sin. Human efforts to atone for sin, no matter how imperfectly executed, cannot be erased by government fiat. Our nation has grievously mistreated Native Americans, African Americans, women and other minorities throughout history. To make rightful amends, our institutions began efforts to diversify their staff, ensure equal treatment of all and to be more inclusive of minorities. The effort became known by the acronym DEI. Vilifying those efforts, President Donald Trump, his advisoes and a number of state legislatures have ordered DEI initiatives to be eradicated from government, academia, military, businesses and nonprofits. The purgers' mantra has been: We're diverse enough! Calls for inclusion and equality are Marxist attacks on the merit system. America is great again! We don't need to feel guilty, or to atone for anything. Injustices were committed, though, and a valid question is: How is adequate atonement determined? There is an anecdote about a saint in the Catholic Church named Jean-Marie-Baptiste Vianney (1786 – 1859). Referred to as the 'Curé d'Ars,' this humble village priest was known for being a wise spiritual advisor. One day a woman confessed to him that she had slandered another townswoman. Because the sacrament of penance requires that the penitent make reparations, the priest instructed her to take a pillow up to the church's bell tower, cut it open and scatter the feathers into the wind. Puzzled, the woman nevertheless complied. She then returned to the priest and asked for her absolution. 'Well, you haven't quite finished your penance,' Vianney told her. 'You need to first go and retrieve all the feathers that you scattered.' 'But that would be impossible,' exclaimed the exasperated woman. 'Yes it would,' replied the priest, adding: 'God certainly forgives you, my child; but I wanted you to see that there is no way you can adequately right the wrong and compensate for the damage caused by your calumny. Going forward, though, you must continue to take steps to atone for the sin committed.' The steps made so far by DEI to right discrimination have not even come close to fair and adequate reparation. Yet they are being halted by people who cannot own up to the fact that centuries of injustice have hamstrung minorities socially and economically. Objectors bristle at the thought of any inconvenience caused by the attempted redress of grievances. People of conscience in government, corporate, private, religious, academic and nonprofit institutions must forge ahead with DEI practices aimed at correcting historic injustices. These are a country's honest attempt to right past wrongs. The efforts, even if not always perfectly tuned or implemented, constitute a faith-filled nation's requisite and long overdue atonement for sin.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
House Democrat' bill would combat LGBTQ elder abuse
Legislation introduced Friday, during Pride Month, by more than a dozen House Democrats would help combat abuse against elderly LGBTQ Americans. The Elder Pride Protection Act would establish a task force within the Department of Justice to study the 'increased incidence of elder abuse' against LGBTQ seniors and develop best practice solutions to be implemented by state and local law enforcement, according to a copy of the bill, shared first with The Hill. 'No one, especially our vulnerable seniors, should ever be mistreated because of who they are or who they love,' said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who introduced the bill Friday alongside Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who recently launched a bid to replace retiring Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) in the Senate next year. In November, Gottheimer announced he would run for governor of New Jersey. Craig, who is gay and one of 13 openly LGBTQ members of Congress, said the measure would help shield seniors from abuse and discrimination 'as we continue the struggle for LGBTQ+ rights.' 'LGBTQ+ seniors led the fight for so many of the rights LGBTQ+ Minnesotans enjoy today, and now it's our turn to fight for them,' she said in a statement. LGBTQ older adults are at heightened risk for adverse health and social outcomes compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers, according to the Center for Health Care Strategies, a New Jersey nonprofit. SAGE, an advocacy group for LGBTQ elders that has endorsed Gottheimer and Craig's bill, has said LGBTQ seniors are more vulnerable to abuse and neglect. Comprehensive data on elder abuse is lacking, though the Justice Department estimates that more than 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older experience some form of elder abuse each year. In limited data, LGBTQ seniors, who are at higher risk of isolation, report elevated rates of abuse, according to SAGE. 'These are challenging times, and now more than ever, LGBTQ+ elders deserve to age without fear of elder abuse,' said Aaron Tax, SAGE's managing director of government affairs and policy advocacy. The bill, which has 14 Democratic co-sponsors, stands little chance of passing the GOP-controlled House. Republicans and President Trump have denounced initiatives that prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), claiming they stoke divisions and promote 'woke ideology.' A National Center on Elder Abuse webpage previously dedicated to 'advancing justice for LGBTQ elders' appears to have been deleted this year in the administration's purge of government websites following Trump's executive orders targeting DEI and 'gender ideology.'
