UVU’s SHOCKING Commencement Pick After Charlie Kirk Assassination

UVU’s speaker choice exposes something deeper in higher education This Is Beyond Tone Deaf… It’s a Slap in the Face Imagine If This Happened to the Left… The one question no journalist pressed after the announcement This is not just bad judgment; this is a moral failure!

 Raw Transcript

All right, welcome to Quick Show today.
Today is April 13, 2026. My name is Greg Matson and I am your host. In this episode, we are covering the Utah Valley
University commencement speaker, invited here, speaking in just a couple of weeks, Sharon McMahon,
who hours after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University, was disparaging him and calling him out for being hateful.
Uh, odd odd choice. You have to wonder what in the world is going on here. Does Sharon have some ties to people at UVU?
Is there she's spoken there before? But wow, this is very odd. And this is going to be the the, you know, the elephant in the room during the commencement speech.
The 300 lb gorilla, so to speak,
the,000b gorilla during this commencement speech. It's very, very odd. I'm going to cover why, even additional reasons why this is such an
odd choice. All right, this episode is brought to you by Go and Do Travel and the Wavemakers Podcaster Cruise, which
is coming up November 14th to 21st. This is a fantastic event. Had a great time at it last year in November. Uh we're
going to have several different podcasters there, such as Jackson and Hayden Paul from the Stick of Joseph,
Cardinal Ellis from Ward Radio, Jonah Barnes, Andrea Woodmancy, Aroni, Hannah Stoddard, we've got Jacob Hansen of
Thoughtful Faith. It's just it's going to be a great group. Uh a lot of fun.
You're going to be with this group and with those members of the online community for an entire week sailing up the California coast. It's going to be a
blast. Edifying. You're going to have a learn learn so many different things from these presentations and have a
fantastic experience. Go to quickdia.com cwicdia.com.
up at the top, go to trips and events and scroll down to wave makers. Be sure when you register on this that you put
in the code CWIC5 because that will give you a discount on the cruise. All right, cwic5 for a discount. Here we go.
All right, so let's get into this. Uh again, a very odd choice for UVU to choose this commencement speaker. Let's
go to their website and take a look at what they've got here. You've got uh Sharon McMahon is a New York Times best-selling author, award-winning
educator, and America's government teacher. That is a very odd title, if that's self-placed by her. America's
government teacher. I'm not sure how that's much of a positive, but uh let's go over a couple things here. She's she's brought up here as being someone
who's completely nonpartisan. That's the big focus of what they talk about here.
But if you go to her social media, she obviously has political views that she puts out there. This isn't just about,
you know, peace. This isn't just about being nonpartisan. She puts out her political views and they are not aligned
uh with certainly Charlie Kirk obviously and and she's it's always odd to me when I see this kind of thing. It's the same type of thing I saw with Jonathan Roush,
the journalist, and and BYU's, you know,
wrapping their arms around him and and and everybody being goooo gaga over his
um support of the church with uh the way that we're handling LGBTQ issues. He is
a gay atheist and and of course he likes what we're doing because we're we're moving toward his side. We're moving
toward what he wants. But it's the same type of thing. He talks about how, you know, two sides can work together and
it's all, you know, uh, hunky dory and kumbaya. But if you go to his social media or his articles, he is not that
4 minutesway at all. And I, it's the same thing here with Sharon McMahon. So, she's going to be speaking as the commencement speaker for this uh, this year's uh,
graduation at UVU. This is uh April 29th, 2026. So less well about a couple
weeks away here uh where they will have this. There's been a lot of controversy and talk over this because of what she
did and her posts again her posts about Charlie Kirk just hours after he was assassinated. Now this is the oddest
thing. The oddest thing, right? The the biggest thing known for you had all the trauma. There was all the talk about how
the the the students needed to sit through trauma sessions and and and maybe some of them did what they had vi
they had seen what had gone on. It's the biggest event to ever happen quite frankly unfortunately at UVU
and that was just back in September of last year. So we are here we are what about eight months later
and the school decides that for their commencement speech for this school year in which Charlie Kirk was assassinated
on campus that they're going to have a speaker who ridiculed and disparaged Charlie Kirk shortly after he was assassinated and killed.
That is the conscious decision here of the president of the school who I see is resigning after this month. She resigns May 1st of 2026.
Someone who generally I think I like what who she is and what she does. Uh but what a strange strange choice here.
And and you've got the chapter of TPUSA of course at UVU up in arms. The conservative group of students there up
in arms over all of this. doesn't matter. And and the first thing that always comes to my mind with these things, especially in an education
setting, an educational setting and it and and a higher education setting, is what if the tables were flipped on this?
What if the tables were flipped on this?
What if you had a left-wing pundant that had come to speak at UVU
and that person was assassinated outside while they were on campus
talking and you and there was a right-wing pundit that within hours of that
assassination is disparaging that left-wing pundit and how they are
horrible and and that they spread hate and and then that person gets asked to
speak at the end of the year at the commencement for UVU.
You and I both know that would never ever happen. But in a a a leftleaning environment,
and I'm not saying UVU as a whole is left-leaning. I am just saying that in education spaces spaces educational
spaces in that world where your peers are all over the country and beyond and
they subscribe to a certain religion, a certain political posture,
then of course something like this is going to be easier to get across. It's going to be easier to push through. And
that's apparently what has happened here because we're a decision or or there is the possibility that there was absolutely no vetting done on this,
right? That there was no vetting done on this whatsoever. This president, Astred,
I want to get her name right here, but uh Astred Tuminesz or Tuminz, I'm not
sure how how to pronounce that. uh who has been the president for a few years now, several years, and who's retiring
8 minuteson May 1st or leaving the school at May 1st. Uh she was presiding over the assassination
and and and there's even the thought that well, why wow why didn't they have enough security here? Why how why was
the the security so scant and how did this happen? And I'm not, you can't totally blame somebody for that.
Obviously, you don't expect these things. They don't happen every day. But still, she's presiding over that event
and understands the trauma and and the national press and the international press that has honed in on your campus.
And you are the president.
And for the school year, you choose you choose someone who derides Charlie Kirk.
What what a bizarre scenario. A bizarre bizarre scenario. Now, regardless of
this, you have the expected press uh
channels here, medium medi media that have come in and and supported the
decision and and even though it is absolutely bizarre,
they barely touch on the fact that this is so bizarre, they don't touch at all.
They don't go over the quotes and the posts specifically in the articles that she made because they would be afraid to
do that. Instead, they're going to support the institution. Of course,
they're going to support the institution. Let's take a look here uh on this article written by Emma Pittz,
which shows up elsewhere. This is really going to be telling. She says, "Mixed reactions."
Mixed reactions uh followed Utah Valley University's announcement last month that America's government teacher,
again, wonderful title. Sharon McMahon would be the 2026 commencement speaker.
McMahon was criticized by conservatives for her reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and some on campus feel
she wasn't the right choice. some on campus. How would this be written if it was again the tables were turned? Many
many were were it would be many at least that word would be used. Since news of McMahon's participation in the commencement for what will be the
university's largest graduating class in its history was posted. UVU spokesperson Sharon Turner
told the Desireette News the responses to her speaking of for commencement have been overwhelmingly positive. of course
by whom? The faculty uh by her peers and and that McMahon spoke on campus
previously and was wellreceived. Was that before Charlie Kirk's assassination should have looked that up. Wonder if that was done before her assassination.
The spokesperson, another Sharon here,
Sharon Turner says also she focuses on nonpartisan approach to history. don't read our social media and civics which
is consistent with our standards as a university. So that's their reasoning.
What was their reasoning with Charlie Kirk? There's nothing here addressed and the the article the journalist here does not address this specifically or put an
answer in at least from Sharon Turner of UVU about Charlie Kirk's assassination.
You know, a good question might be something like, "Sharon,
uh, this was the biggest event that ever happened at UVU. It just happened back in September. Why did you choose to pick
someone who disparaged Charlie Kirk within hours of his assassination and called him hateful and took quotes
and put them out of context and lied about them, saying they were in context?
that that would be a good journalistic question, right? But no, there's a certain side that is being supported here by the Desireette News.
The institutional side is being supported here because they have friends in high places. That's that's exactly what it is. Okay, let's go a little bit
further here. As a New York Times best-selling author, an award-winning educator, and podcaster, McMahon was a
notable flat platform that focuses on political issues, both current and historical.
She often makes guest appearances on news platforms and podcasts. So, she's a political figure.
Okay. She's a political figure that you're going to bring on. Would you bring on someone who leaned right as a political figure knowing she's a political figure for for commencement?
No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't. They they loed her here. This is from the president Astred Tumz
in a press release saying that Sharon McMahon is an original. She is a force of nature and a force for good. As a
former history teacher, she understands that education can inform, inspire, and instigate courageous action.
She underlines how each of us can contribute to a vibrant democracy and how strength comes from knowledge,
kindness, and collective action.
Okay. Again, where is the question to the president about why you chose her after she disparaged Charlie Kirk after
his assassination? No words of this whatsoever. Again, the website of Sharon
McMahon states that she is a source for nonpartisan insight that makes sense of the news, unpacks misinformation and
gives it and connects the dots from history to today. My goal is simple. She says the truth,
explain it clearly and help you understand how your system works so together we can make it work better.
Okay? Obviously, not in every case. All right. Now, what's interesting here?
Now, one thing that's interesting here that tells you a little bit more about the slant on this is that this article
in whole is grabbed posted on ksl.com.
So, anyone, those of you in Utah, you know very well about ksl.com and where they lie on these issues, which is a
bizarre thing. I I think for the church to own this station uh not just because of its political views but because it is
so political and so aligned to one side of the aisle
but this gives almost zero cred to it it pulls
credibility away from the Desireette Newses article. I would suggest having this in this is like this is like the Salt Lake Tribune grabbing the
Desireette News article and putting it up in whole asking for permission to put it up as a whole article for the Salt Lake Tribune. It's the same thing.
Exactly the same thing. Very odd thing.
Now let's go back here to the Now let's go back to looking at the
president here. the president uh was involved with the US Institute of Peace something that the government with under
the uh boy the Doge under doge they were trying to get rid of this because of wasteful funds that was not needed right
they've won this in a court battle to keep it open and then Trump Trump changes the name and puts his name on it
right the Institute for Peace something like the Donald Trump Institute for Peace or something like that you know whatever you know, typically you wait
for presidents to die before you put their name on anything. But anyway, uh the the the whole the purpose for much
of the UVU pre UVU's president's uh the UVU president's career
was to prevent and reduce conflict. That's what she that's what she specialized in and had
jobs at very very high levels with the the government of the Philippines in DC uh on several large boards. Uh and her job was conflict resolution.
So where does that make sense here? Conflict resolution and prevention.
So how does this fit into her what process that she puts things through? I mean, certainly she's got some type of a
process to lower conflict, to get to resolution. Uh, I don't think this would fit into that. I don't think this would
fit into her process. So, a very odd thing to put together here and and and you know, kind of as a parting gift to the university that she gives here. Uh,
it's very strange. Very, like I said, I like her. I I do. I just think that this is such an odd odd thing. Maybe she just says, "I don't care. you know, I'm
leaving. It doesn't matter. I I doubt it. But yeah, explain it to me. Explain it to me. What is the reasoning behind this? It's very strange.
Now, on KUTV on their website, that's another Utah uh television station, news station.
There's some more that is here. Here you've got Mike Lee, uh who I do not always agree with, but but oftentimes
do. He says here, uh you know, why would you do this, UVU? That's the question.
And nobody asks this. That's the problem with the Desireette News article. Nobody asks this. It's the obvious obvious
question. And of course, it's not in here because the Desat News isn't going to do this. They're not going to make UVU look bad,
right? So, why would you do this? Here is Caleb Chilcat. He is the chapter president of Turning Point USA, Charlie Kirk's uh organization at UVU. and he released this this statement.
Hours immediately after Charlie Kirk's or Charlie's assassination, Sharon McMahon posted a now deleted series of
out of text quotes from Charlie in an effort to tarnish his name. This is true. This is true. in order to tarnish
his name and minimize the tragedy rather than offering condolences or condemning political violence. Later on, much later
on, she goes in much, much later on, she goes in and does condemn political violence. But in the moment for her, the
issue was Charlie Kirk is hateful and I'm going to take things out of context,
say that they are in context, and I'm going to drag his name through the mud.
even though he was just assassinated a few hours ago. That that's that's what happened. Uh Caleb continues here. While
universities should welcome diverse viewpoints, great point, great thing to say. Platforming someone who treated a historic and tragical tragic political
assassination. I would insert here that happened at our university back in September.
you know, not treating it as a moment to grieve, but as an opportunity to create content and make a political statement,
right? The nonpartisan making a political statement to create content is tonedeaf
and disrespectful to those still affected. Absolutely.
Again, bizarre. He continues, "And the fact that the university is choosing McMahon is entirely disappointing to all of us still reeling from his loss. I
couldn't be more disappointed in this university for such a hurtful and callous decision. And that's exactly what it is. It is unbelievably callous.
Who in the world thought about this first?
20 minutesThat's what I'd like to know. Who thought to themselves, "Let's get Sharon. She said really bad things about Charlie Kirk, so let's go get her.
That's perfect for this year's end,
commencement, the year, the end of this year for for for UVU, for all the tragedy, for everything that's happened
here, the court uh uh case still going on with his murderer.
Let let's let's have somebody who really disparaged him instead of even offering condolences.
This makes a lot of sense. Now those tweets,
those posts have been deleted since then, but others had captured them. This part here is interesting by KUTV.
It says, "Two news also reached out to the Utah University, Utah Valley University for an interview to discuss the process of choosing a speaker."
Okay, there's the right question. Why McMahon was selected and its response to concerned students. Well, they didn't address this at all about Charlie Kirk,
right? Oddly, here it says the university directed two news to its initial announcement. So, they would not answer the question.
This is this is really something. I mean, this is really really something that they that they have done this.
It it is it is mud in your face, pie in your face, taking a pie and throwing it in your own face.
It it is it's unreal to me. It is absolutely unreal. But at an higher
education institution, it doesn't surprise me at all. So, they sent her over to the the announcement that was
made uh and all the lauding of of Sharon McMahon and that's why they chose her, right? That's their reasoning.
All right. Now, for those of you who are on video here, you're watching this.
I've got here a a still of uh the quotes here from Sharon McMahon.
Her her in Instagram account here, I believe this is Instagram. This could be Twitter. Uh says it's called Sharon Says
So. I think this is on both. I think this is also her her Instagram account.
And this is from September 12th, right? 20 uh 2025.
And this is about Charlie Kirk after he had been killed. Says here,
"These aren't sound bites taken out of context." This is what she's saying precisely. It is a blatant lie. A
blatant lie, right? Uh 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.
What are you saying here, Sharon? What are you saying here? In in the in the middle of all of this happening, this tragedy, you're bringing up a political point about how Charlie is hateful.
It doesn't magically erase this. I I I you are not based on this someone who
reduces conflict. You are not You might be nonpartisan, but you're certainly non-political. you are not apolitical.
Let's let's be clear on this.
Here are a few of the things that she's grabbing from Charlie Kirk on his quotes uh and taking them out of context. She
says there these are just a handful of examples and to many when they see people treating Charlie Kirk like a
murder, it seems like they are also encompass endorsing these ideas.
That is absolutely disgusting. What?
What ideas, Sharon? What ideas? This is what you're going with. If you empathize or you're concerned about him being
martyed, you must you must be a bad person. You're a hateful person like Charlie is. That's what you're saying.
Here's another one. The controversy isn't about being uh politically incorrect. having a difference of
opinion or peace hold on or preaching the gospel. It's about repeating bigoted ideas on a stage that reached tens of millions.
No, it's not. I I I am not a huge Charlie Kirk fan uh in terms of having been exposed to a lot of his material,
but I I do not believe for a second that he was a bigoted person. Not not not at all.
And then she says lastly here, it's important to remember that the incredible tragedy of a public assassination does not erase the harm
many experienced from his words and the excusing and the ensuing actions his followers took.
Okay. All right. So, these were just a few things that she said. I want to get into the postmillennial here and they they cover a little bit more on on what
was done with all of this. This is uh my friend Tommy Stevenson uh on his account on X and this is on
post millennial millennial. It says the full context of Charlie Kirk's black pilot quote used by Sharon McMahon and
others to claim he was a bigot. So this is how it works here, right? This is what Charlie said and she again she had said that she put everything into context.
She she certainly did not. If I see a black pilot, this is quoting Charlie Kirk. If I see a black pilot, I'm going to bring this up a little larger here.
If I see a black pilot, I'm going to be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified." Kirk said in his podcast. So, that's what she's using. Now, of course, she's not
going to follow up with the entire context of this. He's not talking about that's the way he wants to be. In fact,
he hates being that way. He hates having to think that. He doesn't think that because he's black. He's thinking that
because of DEI practices. That's what he's railing against is DEI, not because
he has black pilots and not because he would think that way because he has black pilots.
All right, I'm going to go on a little bit more here on on Tommy's quote or All right, I'm going to go a little bit more here on Tommy's
uh ex post here. Tommy says McMahon claimed the quote in context
and it cast suspicion on all black professionals, not just individuals, and sounds like he automatically views black Americans as less intelligent or less
educated. So, she changed this purposefully. This is a man that was just killed a day or two before this,
just just murdered in front of all of the world.
And she's doing this. She's putting this into into saying it's in context when it's way out of context. And it was not in context at all. Right? Seconds later,
Kirk said, "That's not who I am. That's not what I believe." They were talking about the impact of DEI,
right? That's what they were talking about. They weren't talking about, "Oh, we've got black pilots. Who cares?"
But of course, Sharon here after this assassination is going to rail against him, position this as an a blatant lie.
Blatant lie trying to say she's in context with all of this a after he was just murdered. And and I'm sorry, but
having this woman on isn't much different for the university to be in this same position. It's it's strange.
It's very very strange. Back to the article with the postmillennial, it says that Charlie Kirk then went on to say that only when airline companies such as
United, remember the United deal that was going on there for a while, uh,
which they gave up on because it was wrong. Such as United are trying to reach quotas for diversity. That would be the conclusion some would come to.
It's about DEI. It's not about having black pilots.
The CEO said he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not going to get the job. I so I see this guy. He might be a nice person. I say, 'Boy, I hope he's
not a Harvard style affirmative action student. So, you know, that's what he's saying.
It it has nothing to do with what his color is. It has to do with the DEI programs that are in place.
And I want to finish again with TPUSA's Caleb Chilkut, president of TPUSA, the
chapter there at UVU. Again, hours immediately after Charlie's assassination, Sharon McMahon posted a
now deleted series of outofcontext quotes from Charlie in an effort to tarnish his name and minimize the
tragedy rather than offering condolences or condemning political violence.
Okay, that is who they are asking to do,
asking them to to speak for the commencement to just it's
this is incredible. I seriously this is just it is beyond the pale for the university to do this. It is a slap in
the face. It is a it's not a a a backhanded slap in the face. It is a full slap in the face to the family of
Charlie Kirk, to those that uh liked him and and and to to humanity to humanity. It's a joke. Absolute joke.
I hope that they change this type of thing in the future. Um they consider this decision. Maybe there's still a couple weeks. Maybe they consider a
change. I doubt it. But uh wrong. This is really, really wrong.
Thanks for listening.