Last Updated on April 16, 2025 by Bertrand Clarke
As Florida continues to enforce some of the strictest restrictions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education, public universities are finding themselves walking a legal tightrope. A recent undercover video has reignited controversy after revealing how one university may be operating within the letter of the law—while possibly sidestepping its spirit.
The video, released by conservative watchdog Accuracy in Media (AIM), features Heather Klišanin, an administrator at the University of South Florida (USF) St. Petersburg, explaining to an undercover operative how DEI programming persists on campus despite recent legislative crackdowns. The conversation highlights a reliance on student fees, which under current law remain a viable funding mechanism for student-led organizations and events—even those that promote DEI principles.
“Student-funded things are not affected by the changes in regulation and law,” Klišanin is heard saying in the video. “We just have to make sure… it’s mostly done through student government because if it’s student-funded, they can’t stop it.”
Her comments have sparked concern among critics, especially as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has taken a hardline stance against DEI across the public education system. Under SB 266, signed into law in 2023, state funding for DEI programs at public colleges and universities was explicitly banned. However, the law included exceptions for student-led programs financed by student fees.
While supporters of the law view it as a necessary corrective to what they describe as a “divisive ideology,” others say that cutting DEI initiatives undermines efforts to foster inclusive learning environments and support marginalized student populations.
Florida’s Anti-DEI Legislation: A Brief Overview
SB 266, which took effect in July 2023, was one of a series of measures introduced under Governor DeSantis’s broader “anti-woke” agenda. The law prohibits Florida’s public colleges and universities from using state or federal funds for programs or activities that “advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or promote political or social activism.”
However, the law carved out a notable exemption: student-led initiatives funded through non-state sources, specifically activity and service (A&S) fees. These fees are typically included in tuition bills and allocated by student governments to campus organizations.
According to the University of South Florida’s own financial data, approximately $17 million in A&S fees were collected across its campuses during the 2022–2023 academic year, with the St. Petersburg campus accounting for roughly $1.8 million.
“Under current regulations, as long as student fees are allocated in accordance with established university procedures and not directed by administration, the programs they fund—even those touching on DEI—can still operate legally,” said Dr. Alicia Martinez, a legal scholar specializing in education policy at Florida State University.
Watchdog Video Fuels Political Backlash
Despite the legal nuances, the AIM video—heavily edited and framed to highlight administrative attempts to “circumvent” the law—has drawn sharp criticism from conservative groups and state officials.
In the video, Klišanin acknowledges the existence of a “loophole” and describes how her office collaborates with student government to keep DEI-related programs running without direct departmental funding.
USF’s official response emphasized compliance with the law, noting that Klišanin would undergo additional training but stopped short of suggesting disciplinary action. “The University of South Florida follows all state and federal guidance, policies, and laws related to DEI,” a spokesperson said in a written statement.
Governor DeSantis’s communications director, Bryan Griffin, was less diplomatic. “Circumventing state laws & rules prohibiting DEI in public universities is unacceptable. We are looking into the matter and, to the extent public dollars are being used toward DEI, there will be consequences.”
AIM President Adam Guillette, who confronted Klišanin on camera, claimed the exemption may be a smokescreen. “It’s a workaround that’s still rooted in public dollars,” he argued, citing that more than 74% of in-state students at USF received state scholarships like Bright Futures, which could arguably tie public funding to student activity fees.
Student Voices and Legal Ambiguity
For many students, DEI is not just a political concept—it’s a matter of safety, identity, and opportunity. USF student Mariah Jefferson, president of a multicultural student group, expressed frustration at the controversy.
“What we’re doing is student-led, by definition. The fact that people want to take that away or question it just because it makes them uncomfortable says more about them than it does about us,” Jefferson said.
Legal experts note the growing complexity of enforcing SB 266 in an environment where funding streams and programming are often intertwined. According to a recent analysis by the Florida Higher Education Policy Center, nearly 62% of DEI-style programming across Florida’s 12 public universities in 2023–2024 was student-initiated and student-funded.
However, watchdog groups and some legislators argue the lines are too blurry.
“There’s a legitimate question about whether student fees—especially when collected as a mandatory charge and when the majority of students are supported by state subsidies—can truly be considered separate from public funds,” said Michael Crenshaw, an attorney with the conservative think tank Florida Legal Watch.
Broader Implications and a Growing Pattern
The Klišanin video isn’t the first time such tactics have come to light. In February, Dr. Haywood Brown, a former USF associate vice president of academic affairs, resigned after Fox News published undercover footage of him boasting about similar methods to sustain DEI activities under the radar.
“With the details of Mr. Brown’s actions and public commitments to violating state law and academic standards surfacing to our attention, our office has immediately ensured his relationship with our university system has ended,” said Griffin at the time.
A pattern appears to be emerging, one that reflects both quiet resistance and legal adaptation within Florida’s higher education system.
What Comes Next
In the wake of these revelations, state lawmakers are reportedly considering amendments to SB 266 that would further restrict how student fees can be used, potentially requiring that all such expenditures be vetted for DEI content.
At the same time, universities are facing mounting pressure—from both sides. On one end, lawmakers and watchdogs demand stricter compliance and greater transparency. On the other, students and faculty push back against what they see as ideologically driven censorship.
For institutions like USF, the challenge will be balancing legal compliance with student autonomy—and finding ways to support diverse communities under increasing scrutiny.
As the legislative landscape evolves and new watchdog tactics emerge, the debate over what constitutes “public funds” and who has the right to decide how they’re used will only grow more heated.
“Florida’s higher ed system is now the frontline of a national ideological battle,” said Dr. Martinez. “And the real casualties may end up being academic freedom and student expression.”
