Santa Ono's Bid for University of Florida Presidency Falters Amid Controversy

Santa Ono's Bid for University of Florida Presidency Falters Amid Controversy

In a surprising turn of events, Santa Ono's attempt to assume the presidency of the University of Florida (UF) has come to an abrupt end following a highly contentious meeting of the Florida Board of Governors, marked by personal attacks and fierce ideological battles. As a result, the decision is now thrust back to the UF Board of Trustees, which must now explore an alternative candidate, likely one with less ideological baggage.

The Board's rejection of the current President of the University of Michigan stemmed largely from the vocal opposition of prominent figures, including U.S. Senator Rick Scott, U.S. Representative Byron Donalds, and Donald Trump Jr., the latter describing Ono as a "woke psycho." This chorus of dissent raised concerns about Ono's fit for the role, particularly given UF's current political climate.

Despite Florida Governor Ron DeSantis expressing that some of Ono's past comments made him “cringe,” he opted for a more reserved approach during the meeting, possibly influenced by the fact that one of his key supporters, Mori Hosseini, had been an advocate for Ono. This complicated dynamic opened the door for his critics on the right to seize upon the opportunity.

In the lead-up to the vote, Ono sought to clarify his previous stance on contentious issues that detractors had weaponized. Confronted with accusations regarding his commitment to the Jewish community, he labeled antisemitism as “dangerous, insidious … and a threat.” Further, he voiced his support for the recent decision to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in Florida, emphasizing a commitment to ensure that similar initiatives would not return to UF.

However, as the meeting unfolded, questions became increasingly pointed, especially from board members like Paul Renner, a former House Speaker. Renner expressed significant reservations regarding Ono's previous affiliations with DEI programs, probing him for any public statements that would indicate opposition to such initiatives prior to his candidacy for UF. When Ono could not produce such statements, it raised alarms among board members.

Brian Lamb, Chair of the Board of Governors, intervened to highlight the procedural nature of their role, stating, “We are the Board of Governors, not the Supreme Court,” reminding members that the primary duty was to ratify the UF Trustees' decision.

In a dramatic moment later in the meeting, Hosseini described the situation as 'heartbreaking,' questioning why governors would exert efforts to derail the candidacy of a handpicked candidate. When asked if anyone else on the Board had aspirations for the presidency, he bluntly stated, “Paul Renner.” Renner quickly clarified that he had no interest in the position, citing potential conflicts due to his role on the board.

The discontent toward Ono was not confined to personal biases, as several former prominent political figures expressed their concerns regarding his ability to pivot ideologically from a left-leaning academic background to align with the current regime in Gainesville, seeking clarity on this abrupt rightward turn.

As the deliberation concluded, M. Carson Good, President of Good Capital Group, encapsulated the prevailing sentiment in the room, asserting, “I really, really want to try to get to yes, but this philosophical difference is just too far.” Meanwhile, UF alumni and some trustees defended Ono, asserting his qualifications and character, arguing he could facilitate greater academic growth and protect Jewish students at the university.

With a potential salary package of around $3 million per year, including base salary and performance incentives, Ono's candidacy was positioned as a lucrative opportunity for the university. However, with this latest rejection, the search for a new leader begins anew.

This process not only demonstrates the intense politicization of educational leadership in Florida but also raises questions about what direction UF may take moving forward. As the university navigates this pivotal moment, stakeholders remain watchful.