Charlie Kirk Outrage Explodes After University Picks Critic as Commencement Speaker

Utah Valley University is facing a wave of backlash after naming a commencement speaker whose past remarks about Charlie Kirk are now being blasted as deeply offensive, especially given the brutal assassination that took place on the school’s own campus just months ago.

The controversy centers on Sharon McMahon, an author and educator chosen to speak to this year’s graduating class. But what should have been a celebratory moment for students has quickly turned into a political firestorm, as critics revive comments McMahon made after Kirk was gunned down at UVU in a killing that shocked conservatives across the country.

At the time, McMahon publicly condemned the murder itself, calling it horrific and tragic. But many on the right say her follow-up remarks crossed a line. In one statement, she said that “millions of people feel they were harmed” and argued that Kirk’s murder “does not magically erase what was said or done.” In another post, she wrote that for many Americans, especially Black, LGBTQ, and Muslim communities, Kirk was not someone who simply engaged in good-faith debate on college campuses.

She also said the “incredible tragedy of a public assassination does not erase the harm many experienced from his words and the ensuing actions his followers took,” a comment that has now come roaring back into public view as anger over her university selection grows.

For many conservatives, the issue is not just political. It is personal. Kirk was assassinated on that campus, and critics say choosing someone who publicly framed his legacy in such a negative light so soon afterward is nothing less than a slap in the face.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee was among those who voiced outrage, publicly asking why the university would make such a decision. Caleb Chilcutt, president of Turning Point USA’s chapter at Utah Valley University, did not hold back either, calling the move “shameful.”

“They could have brought any other speaker,” Chilcutt said. “If they liked Charlie, didn’t like Charlie, I honestly don’t really care. But the fact they brought someone who was so critical, literally days after the assassination on my campus, is just shameful for me.”

Former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz piled on as well, calling McMahon a “liberal hack” and branding her a “horrific choice” for the role.

Online, the backlash has only intensified. Some critics have gone so far as to call for protests at graduation, arguing the university has shown stunning disrespect not only to Kirk’s family and supporters, but to the memory of a man whose life was cut short in a national tragedy.

McMahon’s team has pushed back against the criticism, insisting that she “unequivocally condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk” and repeatedly described his death as a tragedy. Her spokesperson said she believes political disagreement should never be met with violence and that her broader mission is to help Americans better understand government while encouraging more unity and bridge-building.

Even so, UVU is standing by its decision. University president Astrid Tuminez praised McMahon in glowing terms, calling her “a force of nature and a force for good.” Tuminez said McMahon represents the kind of educator who can inspire students and spark courageous action.

But to many outraged conservatives, that defense misses the point entirely.

Charlie Kirk was just 31 years old when he was shot and killed at Utah Valley University on September 10. Prosecutors say the man accused of carrying out the attack, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, drove three hours to the campus to murder him. Robinson was later turned in by his own father after police released images tied to the investigation. He now faces capital murder charges and could receive the death penalty if convicted.

The case has continued to develop in court. In a recent filing, Robinson’s attorneys argued that the ATF was unable to definitively match the bullet recovered during Kirk’s autopsy to the rifle allegedly connected to him.

Still, for many on the right, the latest uproar is about more than court filings or campus politics. It is about whether a university that witnessed one of the most shocking political assassinations in recent memory has learned anything at all from the pain left behind.