The Board of Governors gathered at the University of Central Florida’s downtown campus in Orlando to discuss and vote on Santa J. Ono as the 14th president of the University of Florida. This meeting followed the UF Board of Trustees’ recent unanimous approval of Ono as president-elect, marking a swift conclusion to a search that saw him emerge as the sole finalist recommended by the Presidential Search Advisory Committee.
UF Board of Trustees Chair, Mori Hosseini, was set to present the committee’s rationale for selecting Ono, including details about his background and contract. A significant point of contention centered around Ono’s views on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have faced criticism from conservative circles, particularly due to his prior support for such programs while serving as president at the University of Michigan.
Prominent figures, including U.S. Rep. Greg Steube and Donald Trump Jr., have expressed opposition to Ono’s confirmation. Meanwhile, some Florida conservatives have pushed for the search committee to restart the process following his selection as the sole finalist.
If confirmed, Ono would start his tenure on June 4, with a base salary of $1.5 million under a contract that extends through May 2030. However, if the board rejects his candidacy, the search for a new president will need to be reinitiated.
As discussions unfolded during the board meeting, they raised intense questioning around Ono’s past statements on DEI and his stance on current educational policies. Observations revealed concerns about how previous beliefs might influence his leadership moving forward. Ono emphasized his commitment to remain aligned with Florida’s values and to base university policies on scientific merit rather than ideology.
In a surprising turn of events, the board ultimately did not confirm Ono as president, marking a historic moment as it was the first time a solely identified finalist in the UF presidential search process was rejected. Following this decision, discussions among the board indicated frustrations about the questioning tactics used during the meeting, highlighting the contentious nature of the process.
The board’s initial intentions to center discussions on Ono’s qualifications and vision for UF shifted toward heated interrogations of his past actions concerning DEI and race-related policies. There was significant division among board members, with some defending Ono while others challenged his capacity to lead.
This development opens a new chapter for the University of Florida as the board now faces the task of re-evaluating its presidential search strategy at a pivotal moment for the institution, amid ongoing debates about academic governance and ideological alignment in education.
The outcome presents a unique opportunity for the University of Florida to engage with its community and stakeholders on how best to navigate these complex issues moving forward. Engaging with diverse perspectives may ultimately lead to a stronger and more inclusive approach to higher education leadership in Florida.