The University of Florida has a busy time ahead as it prepares to welcome Stuart Bell, the sole finalist for the president position, to campus next week. But before the buzz of meetings, the search — and policies surrounding it — is creating a buzz in Tallahassee, Washington, D.C. and on social media.
Days after the university announced Bell's candidacy, U.S. Sen. Rick Scott slammed the search process, calling for more transparency. “No one really knows anything about either of these people, or any other potential candidate, because there was no public search or vetting process,” he wrote in a letter posted on X.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon reposted Scott's letter, writing that the nation needs "bold leaders to reorient higher education."
"Florida has led the fight to get discriminatory DEI out of our schools and universities," she continued. "UF deserves a president who will continue to drive those reforms."
Then, another repost — from the university itself.
".@EDSecMcMahon is correct. DEI is discriminatory by design, antithetical to the purpose of a university, and incompatible with the pursuit of truth," read the post from the University of Florida's official X account.
.@EDSecMcMahon is correct. DEI is discriminatory by design, antithetical to the purpose of a university, and incompatible with the pursuit of truth.
— FLORIDA (@UF) May 22, 2026
The University of Florida has already acted on that conviction. In December 2025, our Board of Trustees adopted institutional… https://t.co/gH1xNnLIxb
The post received more than 1 million views and drew more than 440 comments. Some agreed with the university's stance, but many criticized the post.
Now, state Rep. Daryl Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, said the university appears to be violating its own neutrality policy. In a letter addressed to Christopher Emmanuel, the university's assistant vice president for government relations, Campbell asked 21 questions to further clarify the post and the university's policies.
A university communications representative said there was no additional statement or comment about the post.
Meanwhile, the university prepares to welcome Bell to campus June 3. It said Bell stands by the university's sentiment and is ready to "Lead UF forward as a university defined by merit, rigor, and the pursuit of truth."
Campbell's full letter
"Dear Mr. Landry and Mr. Emmanuel,
I am State Representative Daryl Campbell and I sit on the Florida House Higher Education Budget Subcommittee. I have become aware of communications put out by the official University of Florida X account, and in my role as a member of the Florida Legislature overseeing a state entity chartered by the state and subject to legislative appropriation, I am using my constitutional oversight authority to request information within 72 hours of 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, in response to the following questions:
1. Please explain the University’s decision to issue an official institutional statement characterizing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives as “discriminatory by design” and “antithetical to the purpose of a university.” What formal process was used to approve that language, and who specifically participated in drafting and authorizing it?
2. Who manages the University’s X account typically, and what is the typical chain of command for posts? Was this followed during this incident?
3. Does the University distinguish between unlawful discrimination and programs intended to improve student access, retention, mentorship, or belonging for historically underrepresented populations? If so, please define which activities the University now considers prohibited “DEI.”
4. What legal or academic standard did the University rely upon in concluding that DEI is “incompatible with the pursuit of truth”? Please provide any memoranda, studies, reports, or policy analyses relied upon in making that determination.
5. Has the University conducted any assessment of whether the public statement may negatively affect recruitment or retention of Black students, Hispanic students, first-generation students, students with disabilities, LGBTQ students, veterans, or faculty from underrepresented backgrounds?
6. Has the University evaluated whether this messaging could expose the institution to reputational harm nationally, including impacts on faculty recruitment, federal grants, private philanthropy, accreditation, or research partnerships?
7. The statement asserts that “no university funds, public or private, will underwrite DEI.” Please define:
- What constitutes “DEI” under University policy;
- Whether scholarships, affinity groups, cultural programming, mentorship programs, pipeline initiatives, or accessibility efforts fall under this prohibition;
- Whether donor-directed private funds are also prohibited from supporting such activities.
8. Please provide the exact language embedded within the presidential contract referenced in the statement, including any metrics, compliance standards, reporting obligations, or enforcement mechanisms tied to the anti-DEI mandate.
9. Has the University received guidance, direction, encouragement, or pressure from the Governor’s Office, the Board of Governors, the Florida Department of Education, or any federal officials regarding the issuance of this statement or related anti-DEI policies?
10. What safeguards are currently in place to ensure that faculty members can continue conducting scholarship related to race, inequality, gender, civil rights, public health disparities, or similar topics without fear of political retaliation or administrative scrutiny?
11. Does the University believe that acknowledging historical barriers to educational opportunity constitutes “discrimination”? If not, where precisely does the University draw the line between inclusive student support and prohibited DEI activity?
12. Please provide data on Black student enrollment, Black faculty representation, retention rates, graduation rates, and campus climate indicators over the past ten years. Has the University analyzed whether eliminating DEI-related infrastructure may worsen existing disparities?
13. Has the University consulted with student organizations, faculty governance bodies, alumni groups, or civil rights organizations regarding the impact of these policies and public statements on campus climate?
14. The University’s statement repeatedly invokes “merit” and “rigor.” Please explain how the institution defines merit in the context of admissions, hiring, and student support, and whether the University believes structural inequalities can affect a student’s ability to compete on ostensibly neutral metrics.
15. Does the University believe there is educational value in fostering diverse learning environments and exposure to differing lived experiences? If so, how does the current institutional position reconcile with longstanding research supporting those benefits?
16. Please provide an accounting of all offices, programs, staff positions, trainings, scholarships, and initiatives eliminated, reduced, restructured, or renamed pursuant to the University’s anti-DEI policies, including associated budgetary impacts.
17. What message does the University believe this official statement sends to Black Floridians and other historically marginalized communities who may already question whether Florida’s flagship public university welcomes them?
18. Given that public universities serve all Floridians, how does the University intend to reassure students and families that the institution remains committed to equal opportunity, fair treatment, and a campus environment in which every qualified student can succeed?
19. Does the University acknowledge a distinction between political neutrality and institutional
silence regarding inequities that materially affect educational access and student outcomes? If so, how is that distinction being operationalized?
20. Has the University analyzed whether the broad and categorical condemnation of DEI could chill constitutionally protected speech or academic discourse among faculty, students, or staff?
21. Finally, does the University believe there remains any institutional responsibility to address disparities in access and outcomes rooted in Florida’s historical exclusion of certain communities from higher education, or has the University formally abandoned that role altogether?
Thank you.
Representative Daryl Campbell"
