By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Florida Board of Governors rejected Santa Ono’s nomination as University of Florida president despite the university’s Board of Trustees’ unanimous approval. Ono faced intense scrutiny and criticism from Republican lawmakers regarding his past support of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, prompting concerns about his alignment with the state’s recently enacted anti-DEI legislation. His extensive questioning by the Board of Governors focused on his previous actions and statements related to DEI and handling of campus protests. Ultimately, the governors’ decision overturned Ono’s selection, preventing him from assuming the presidency and a lucrative five-year contract.
Read the original article here
The Florida Board of Governors’ rejection of Santa Ono as the University of Florida’s president is a fascinating case study in political maneuvering and the shifting sands of ideological allegiances. Ono’s candidacy, initially promising, ultimately imploded due to a perceived lack of alignment with the Board’s priorities. This wasn’t simply a matter of qualifications; it appears to have been a loyalty test cloaked in concerns over salary and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The controversy surrounding Ono’s appointment stems largely from his evolving stance on DEI programs. He had publicly stated, after being named a finalist for the UF presidency, that he now believed such programs did more harm than good. This reversal, coupled with his decision to close DEI offices at the University of Michigan, where he previously served as president, cast a long shadow over his candidacy. His assertion that DEI would never return to UF under his leadership solidified this perception, seemingly alienating a significant portion of the stakeholders.
Many viewed his shift in position as an attempt to appease conservative factions within Florida’s political landscape. The irony, however, is that this apparent about-face failed to secure his appointment. The Board’s rejection suggests that even a complete renunciation of DEI wasn’t enough to gain their complete trust. It points to a deeper, more fundamental issue—a test of unwavering ideological conformity, rather than a genuine assessment of leadership capabilities.
The reactions to the rejection have been mixed, yet predominantly tinged with schadenfreude. Numerous commentators, including former students and faculty from both Michigan and British Columbia, expressed their dissatisfaction with Ono’s leadership and his shifting stance on DEI. Some described his tenure at these institutions as characterized by a lack of genuine commitment to the ideals he espoused, instead depicting him as a figurehead who used inclusive language while failing to deliver meaningful action. There’s a sense that Ono attempted to play both sides, ultimately finding himself rejected by both.
A significant thread within the commentary highlights the perceived hypocrisy of Ono’s actions. He seemingly sacrificed his previous commitment to DEI in the hopes of securing the UF position, only to be ultimately rejected, suggesting that his ideological pivot was not enough to satisfy the Board’s requirements. This outcome has been interpreted as a cautionary tale—a stark reminder that even complete alignment with a specific political ideology doesn’t guarantee success in a highly politicized environment like Florida’s higher education system.
The incident also raises broader questions about the role of ideology in higher education appointments. The focus on DEI has become a major battleground in many states, and Florida is certainly no exception. Ono’s experience suggests that navigating these complex political currents requires not only expertise and leadership skills but also an unwavering commitment to a specific political agenda that aligns perfectly with the prevailing power structure. The lack of flexibility within that structure, seemingly evident in this case, underscores the risks associated with making a public display of ideological compromise.
In summary, the rejection of Santa Ono’s appointment underscores the high-stakes nature of higher education leadership in today’s political climate. It highlights the intricate balance between personal beliefs, political maneuvering, and the inherent pressures within higher education systems increasingly influenced by partisan politics. Ono’s case serves as a cautionary tale, showcasing the potential consequences of attempting to navigate conflicting ideological pressures and the difficulties of satisfying the demands of a politically charged environment. The episode raises concerns about the prioritization of ideological conformity over genuine leadership qualifications and the potential chilling effect this may have on the broader academic community.