Today, Utah Valley University announced that it would no longer be hosting Sharon McMahon at its commencement ceremony. This came after days of severe blowback from conservative students and community leaders who argued McMahon’s public comments about Charlie Kirk in the days after his assassination should disqualify her as an appropriate choice.
The University claims the cancellation was due to “safety concerns,” but for the purposes of this article I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they made this choice because they knew it was the right one. (That said, they ought to say it publicly and own up fully to this “morally bankrupt” mistake, as Representative Burgess Owens put it.)
Some are trying to portray this decision as an example of “reverse cancel culture,” but that would only be true if McMahon was being cancelled for her ideology alone. Rather, McMahon is facing the natural consequences of intentionally defaming and disrespecting Charlie Kirk before his body was even cold, and UVU is facing the natural consequences of inviting her in the first place.
Conservatives may take issue with the fact that McMahon claims to be nonpartisan while consistently supporting left-wing agendas; we might think she’s dishonest to her large audience of low-information voters, using the cover of “America’s Government Teacher” to spread Democrat misinformation; but neither of these reasons is why we’re rejoicing today.
No, we’re rejoicing because UVU’s administration has finally done something to make their still-grieving conservative students–and students around Utah–feel seen, heard, and valued.
This controversy comes at a time when conservative students at BYU, UVU, and across Utah are growing increasingly frustrated with how Utah’s elite and academic class have pushed hard for “niceness,” “civility,” and “bipartisanship.” We feel that these ideals are used to hamstring conservatives in political discourse so that when we advocate for what we believe–especially things that have become controversial in the era of political correctness–we get lectured into silence. This is especially frustrating when it comes from fellow conservatives who are more concerned with sounding nice than standing on principle.
This is why so many of us are impatient with such things as Governor Cox’s Disagree Better movement, the Dignity Index, and the Braver Angels organization. Conservative ideas often feature harsh truths, and even if we don’t intend to offend or harm we are often seen as the problem by these movements. In their eyes, controversy equals contention.
In the wake of Charlie’s death, this impatience boiled over. I was there as it all played out. I had friends at the shooting and I helped organize the Cougar Chronicle’s vigil for Charlie Kirk in Provo. I even wrote an Op-Ed for Deseret News to express my own personal grief.
And I remember the feeling of deep depression that came over me when I realized UVU leadership and many other Utah leaders remained unwilling to stand up for Charlie the way he deserved. It felt as if everything the bridge-building organizations (and UVU itself) did in response was meant to further their own agendas, rather than pay tribute to the actual conservative movement Charlie stood for. For instance, the “Unity Vigil” which paid no significant tribute to Charlie or his life and values.
Conservative students saw these and other actions from UVU as disrespectful. We felt silenced, hurt, and like our recently martyred hero was being weaponized against us, and these feelings were not helped when Sharon McMahon, a woman who openly smeared Charlie Kirk, was asked to be the commencement speaker in the very school year Charlie was murdered. And then people wonder why we’re a little resentful towards the bridge-building movement. This should be obvious, but conservatives don’t feel inclined to engage with peacemaking initiatives when we feel like our side is constantly singled-out for censure.
Some might argue this isn’t the case, that both sides get treated the same way when they are offensive; but I would point you to Sharon McMahon herself. In her posts about Charlie Kirk, she used some of his quotes (many of which are mainstream conservative viewpoints), took them out-of-context (while claiming she didn’t), and used them to accuse Charlie of being divisive, harmful, and bigoted. Then, this same woman gets invited to UVU to give commencement just months later, which means many prominent people must have believed her narrative that Charlie was bad while she is good and bipartisan, despite her disgusting dishonesty.
So yes, there is a double-standard, and it stems from the widespread belief that conservatives are mean, angry, and intolerant while everyone else is open-minded and considerate. In reality, many people with high status in the bridge-building movement are just as guilty at sowing contention as those they decry. In fact, I would argue that Charlie Kirk, in his efforts to engage with students in good-faith and honestly, was ten times the peacemaker and bridge-builder that Sharon McMahon is, and he never needed to lie about being nonpartisan.
But with today’s announcement that UVU will be proceeding without a commencement speaker, perhaps emotions can start to calm. Of course, conservative students need to see respect and consideration become a pattern, but we will happily accept this olive branch as a start. We need to see that our ideas are welcome on campuses and in our communities, we need to know that we will be protected and treated fairly when we suffer a tragedy, and we need to know we are not held in contempt just because our values are different.
One thing we should learn from this is that peacemaking initiatives need to do more than lecture people about being civil. As I said, conservatives get annoyed when they feel like they can’t share ideas that are harsh-sounding or unorthodox. We should put just as much energy into helping students develop higher tolerance for viewpoint diversity as we do into helping students be less divisive. Students don’t just need to learn how to share ideas respectfully, they also need to have the emotional resilience to engage with difficult ideas without feeling unsafe (see The Coddling of the American Mind, by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff).
So, if there’s one lesson the bridge-building movement should learn from this mess, it’s that all students–including conservative students–need to feel seen, heard, and respected before they will be willing to come to the peacemaking table. And, for heaven’s sake, don’t have someone who slandered an assassinated public figure give a commencement speech at the same location six months later.
Cover Photo Source: https://www.eastidahonews.com/2025/09/gop-lawmakers-push-for-charlie-kirk-memorial-on-uvu-campus-some-students-oppose-move/
