Campus Poem CHEERS Assassination

Curro Savoy at a TPUSA event with another speaker on stage — Photo: Carrington Tatum / Shutterstock

A UTSA student read a poem that cheered Charlie Kirk’s assassination and mocked a conservative speaker’s “neck,” igniting outrage on campus and online.

Story Highlights

A student recited a “Kirk-aversary” poem at a UTSA Turning Point USA event, celebrating Kirk’s killing.
The poem referenced a “shot to the neck” and framed the date as an anniversary to remember.
The student then taunted speaker Christian Collins with a neck-related jab, drawing gasps and backlash.
Reports show Collins called the performance hostile and personally directed at him.

Student Reads ‘Kirk-aversary’ Poem at Campus Event

Fox San Antonio reported that a University of Texas at San Antonio student recited a “Kirk-aversary” poem during a Turning Point USA “Pick Up the Mic” event. The poem’s lines included “The flags were hung proudly” and “as we solemnly remembered a shot to the neck,” which referenced the way Charlie Kirk was killed. The report identified conservative activist Christian Collins as the recipient of the performance and described visible shock in the room as the poem ended.

Additional outlets reproduced the poem’s language and framing, including, “’Twas the night before the kirk-aversary” and “tomorrow dear friends is the great Kirk-aversary.” These descriptions cast the poem as a celebration of the assassination, not a neutral reflection. The event was political and public, not a private exchange. Coverage made clear this happened at a campus forum where students addressed a conservative guest, which intensified the reaction among attendees and online readers.

Post-Performance Taunt Targets Speaker’s “Neck”

Reports say that after finishing the poem, the student added a taunt aimed at Collins’s “neck,” saying it was brave he came with “no protection” or “no neck brace.” Outlets quoted that remark as an added jab linked to the “shot to the neck” line in the poem. The comment drew immediate criticism as cruel and dehumanizing. It also fueled claims that the performance crossed from expression into intimidation of a conservative speaker at a public event.

Twitchy captured Collins’s immediate pushback and prayerful response. Collins asked, “Are you happy with yourself now?” and later posted that a student had celebrated the assassination and then commented on his neck. That on-record reaction documents how the target understood the exchange: as hostile, aimed at him, and meant to degrade. The exchange spread fast on social platforms as clips and quotes repeated the neck reference and the “Kirk-aversary” line.

First Amendment Limits and Campus Responsibility

This episode raises a clear line most Americans recognize: free speech protects harsh ideas, but celebrating political murder erodes civic norms. Courts distinguish between protected speech and “true threats,” which require proof of specific intent to threaten. The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that intent matters when the government seeks to punish threatening speech. That legal bar is high, especially in political settings, even when the words are disturbing or vile.

At @UTSA for Pick Up the Mic, a student read a poem celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk with such glee, then told me I was brave to be out here without my neck covered.

I told her I’d pray for her pic.twitter.com/AaNSDm0DSH

— Patriot Pascal Najadi (@PatriotPas0xgy) October 30, 2026

Even if the remarks do not meet the legal standard for a charge, campus leaders still face a duty to keep events safe and civil. Universities can enforce time, place, and manner rules, and they can set conduct codes that bar harassment and disruption while respecting protected speech. Conservative students often see a double standard. They point to quick crackdowns on right-leaning speech, while left-leaning attacks are shrugged off. This case adds to that concern unless UTSA applies policies evenly.

What This Moment Says About Our Politics

Political communication research shows that viral attack clips drive anger and cynicism rather than healthy debate. When leaders and activists reward shock and cruelty, polarization hardens, and the middle checks out. That pattern is at work here: a violent death became a punchline on a campus mic, and the cruelty drew clicks. Americans can condemn this rhetoric without empowering censors. The right answer is equal rules, strong security for speakers, and moral courage to reject praise of violence.