Santa Ono Should Not Be University of Florida President

The left-wing college administrator would jeopardize Ron DeSantis’s anti-woke agenda.

Governor Ron DeSantis pledged during his reelection campaign that Florida would be “where woke goes to die.” DeSantis built his reputation on resisting some of the worst impulses of elite culture: critical race theory, gender ideology, and DEI. He stood his ground against powerful state interests, including Disney, and enacted generational changes in Florida’s public university system. Voters rewarded him with an overwhelming mandate for reform.

Now, his agenda appears to be at risk—and woke is threatening a return to power.

The proximate cause is the nomination of Santa Ono, formerly of the Universities of British Columbia and Michigan, as president of the University of Florida. According to multiple sources familiar with the process, UF Board of Trustees chair Mori Hosseini, a megadonor to state Republicans, led the charge to nominate Ono, whose background he believed would bolster the university’s prestige.

If so, however, it comes with a price. Ono rose through the ranks not because of a reputation for reform, but for reliably toeing the ideological line that has defined the status quo in academia for the past decade. He has expressed support for seemingly every left-wing fad, from “systemic racism” and “climate justice” to DEI and affirmative action. He puts “he/him” gender pronouns in his Instagram profile and gladly recites “land acknowledgments,” which promote the idea that Europeans are illegitimate occupiers of “unceded” native territory.

Last week, I circulated on social media several videos featuring Ono’s past statements, setting off a firestorm in Florida political circles. Governor DeSantis pointed out that he was “not involved” in the selection. According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, members of the Florida Board of Governors, which has final approval over the nomination, were blindsided by the material. Several expressed shock at Ono’s left-wing record and questioned whether the search firm provided a full dossier to the original search committee, as required by state regulation.

The selection of Ono is a scandal. While he claims to have had a change of heart—conveniently published after UF had begun the recruiting process—we have no reason to take him at his word. He promoted left-wing ideological schemes throughout his career and never offered a persuasive reason why his views supposedly evolved. From his decade-long record, we can draw one of two conclusions: Ono was either a true believer in wokeness, or a cynical careerist willing to say anything to move upward.

In either case, he is not the leader of conviction necessary to continue Florida’s academic reforms. He will almost certainly buckle to the prevailing culture of academia and make the Sunshine State a haven of wokeness once again.

The winds may have shifted against Ono, however. My sources in Florida education circles indicate that the Board of Governors is unhappy and that Governor DeSantis has changed his posture, privately signaling that members should vote their conscience. UF board chair Hosseini, however, has remained defiant, believing that he can force the nomination through.

The Board of Governors should resist Hosseini’s pressure campaign and restart the search, if not on the merits of Ono’s candidacy, at least on the ground that the search firm failed to comply with state regulation. Board members should remember that they represent the people of Florida, who voted for fundamental reforms, not the personal wishes of a donor, who, however well-intentioned, has selected the wrong man for the job.

The University of Florida deserves better than a president who, throughout his career, has sounded more like Ibram X. Kendi and Greta Thunberg than Ron DeSantis and Ben Sasse. Though conservatives do not proliferate in academia, several qualified candidates could be recruited in a new search, which should draw more widely from universities, business, politics, and administration. It is better to proceed slowly and end with a solid conservative than to rush the process and end up with a standard-issue progressive.

As board members consider a final vote, I encourage them to frame the issue in the following terms: Will Florida continue to be the place where woke goes to die? Or will it become the place where woke can live again?