Staff Reports
### Controversy at UVU
Utah Valley University is facing a backlash over its decision to name Sharon McMahon as its 2026 commencement speaker, and the controversy says a lot about how badly some campus leaders have lost touch with basic judgment. McMahon’s critics say her comments after Charlie Kirk’s assassination were insensitive and unnecessary, especially given that it happened on UVU’s own campus.
Conservative students and leaders quickly pushed back, arguing that the university should have chosen someone who could bring graduates together rather than reopen old wounds. Turning Point USA chapter president Caleb Chilcutt called the selection tone-deaf, and other campus conservatives said it was an insult to Kirk’s legacy and to students still dealing with the trauma of his murder.
McMahon’s team has defended her, saying she condemned Kirk’s killing and never celebrated his death, while insisting she wanted to promote bridge-building and civic engagement. But that explanation has done little to calm the outrage, because the issue is not just whether she condemned the murder, but whether she chose to use a horrific moment to attack a man many students admired.
UVU eventually backed away from the decision and said it would proceed without a featured commencement speaker after citing safety concerns. That move looks less like leadership than damage control, and it raises the obvious question of why the university thought this choice was worth making in the first place.
The bigger lesson here is that universities should stop pretending every controversy is a noble debate exercise. When a school tied to a national tragedy elevates a speaker seen by many students as disrespectful to the victim, it should expect anger, distrust, and embarrassment—and UVU earned all three.
