After Utah Valley University named “America’s Government Teacher” Sharon McMahon as its 2026 commencement speaker, criticism surged last week across social media.
The controversy centers around comments she made about conservative activist and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk just days after thousands witnessed his assassination on the campus grounds.
On Sept. 12, 2025, two days after Kirk’s death, in a since-deleted post, McMahon shared multiple quotes of Kirk’s — with little context — with the caption, “These aren’t sound bites taken out of context. Millions of people feel they were harmed, and the murder that was horrific and should never have happened does not magically erase what was said or done.”
Last Friday Deseret News reported on the backlash.
According to a statement shared with the Deseret News, McMahon said she “believes what we need most is more bridge-building and more people willing to show up for one another.”
“Sharon unequivocally condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk, repeatedly and publicly calling his death a tragedy and stressing that public debate must never be met with violence,” her spokesperson said. “Sharon’s goal is to unpack what is happening in society and help people understand how government works.”
Many, including UVU’s Turning Point USA chapter president Caleb Chilcutt, described her comments last September as “tone deaf” amid a time of mourning for those grieving the death and the 3,000 who witnessed the tragedy.
“While universities should welcome diverse viewpoints, platforming someone who treated a historic and tragic political assassination, not as a moment to grieve, but as an opportunity to create content, is tone-deaf and disrespectful to those still affected, especially on this campus,” Chilcutt previously told the Deseret News.
‘Morally bankrupt’: Utah GOP erupts over UVU decision
Utah’s GOP congressional leadership has sharply criticized Utah Valley University’s decision to invite McMahon.
Though both her website and a UVU spokesperson labeled McMahon as “nonpartisan,” many, including Utah state leaders, do not see her that way.
“Utah Valley University is disrespecting the tens of millions of Americans who are still mourning Charlie Kirk’s death by scheduling Sharon McMahon—who defamed Charlie within hours after he was murdered on UVU’s campus—as its commencement speaker,“ Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted on X.
Sen. Mike Kennedy said in a post on Wednesday, “This isn’t some abstract issue to debate online; it’s real for the students here. It shows a lack of judgment in its timing and a callous disregard for what this community has gone through,” and that UVU still has time to change courses.
Rep. Celeste Maloy called the decision by the University “tone deaf” and said UVU should “reverse course and choose a speaker who will unite the student body and reflect the mood of students and faculty.”
Rep. Burgess Owens also called for a reversal of the decision and dug into UVU for choosing McMahon. He said the decision was “morally bankrupt.”
“Charlie Kirk was a husband, a patriot, and a man who inspired millions of young Americans to stand up and engage. His life deserves respect. His wife deserves compassion. What UVU is offering instead is contempt. This decision is an insult to every student, every family, and every decent person who expects more from a university,” he added in his post on Tuesday.
But Owens didn’t finish there. The Utah Republican posted a public letter on X Wednesday morning to McMahon, calling on her to withdraw from speaking. He argued that if she were to move forward with speaking, she would diminish the graduation for the “students who deserve a commencement ceremony centered on their achievement, not overshadowed by controversy.”
“In the immediate aftermath of his killing, when emotions were raw and the nation was processing a senseless act of violence, you chose to publicly criticize him. You did so at a moment when the most basic expectation of public figures is to show restraint and respect for the dead and for those who loved them. Whatever your views, that timing reflected a lack of judgment that cannot simply be set aside now. That decision is not abstract. It is directly relevant to your presence at this commencement. This is not about silencing dissent,” Owens said.
He added that if she were to withdraw, it “would not be an admission of wrongdoing. It would be an act of judgment. It would signal that you recognize the uniqueness of this moment and the responsibility that comes with it. It would demonstrate that you are capable of placing the well-being of students and the dignity of the occasion above your own platform.”
Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz said on the KUTV “Take 2″ podcast that he doesn’t believe UVU’s decision was intentional, but a mistake was made, and he doesn’t think McMahon should speak at the ceremony. He isn’t opposed to her returning to campus another time, but for graduation, he said UVU should pick someone “uplifting and noncontroversial.”