Which colleges rescinded speaking invitations to Charlie Kirk and what reasons did they give?

1. Campus rescissions: the University of Florida case — what happened and why

The clearest campus-level example in the available reporting involves a retired University of Florida professor whose emeritus privileges were rescinded after a social‑media statement that said in part “I did not want for him [Kirk] to die,” and “I reserve that wish for Trump.” The university confirmed the emeritus status was removed “in accordance with the university’s policies and regulations” ^[1]. The reporting frames the action as an institutional discipline tied to the content of a public post and university standards rather than an explicit policy change targeting outside speakers ^[1].

2. What the UF statement publicly cited — policy, not politics

UF’s communication cited adherence to existing policies and regulations as the basis for revoking emeritus privileges ^[1]. That phrasing points to enforcement of internal conduct or reputational rules rather than a novel, speaker‑specific ban. The Independent Florida Alligator piece quotes the university’s confirmation of the administrative step, underscoring the procedural frame the school used in justifying the removal ^[1].

3. Other campuses and invitations — available sources do not mention broader rescissions

Available sources in the provided set do not report a list of colleges that rescinded speaking invitations to Charlie Kirk, nor do they document universities canceling upcoming Kirk appearances before his assassination; reporting instead focuses on reactions after his murder and on related controversies (not found in current reporting). Wikipedia notes that Turning Point USA had scheduled a campus tour and that the Utah event where he was killed was the first stop of that fall tour, but it does not list rescinded invitations prior to the attack ^[5].

4. Federal responses and their rationale — visa revocations for celebratory comments

The federal government’s response was concrete and public: the State Department revoked at least six foreign visas after reviewing online posts that it said celebrated Kirk’s assassination ^{[2] [3] [4]}. News outlets including DW, CBC and BBC reported the visa cancellations and included screenshots cited by officials as illustrative examples of the comments that prompted the action ^{[2] [3] [4]}. That action was framed as enforcing consequences for foreign nationals who publicly welcomed the violence.

5. Broader context: polarized reaction and institutional pressure

Reporting paints Kirk as a polarizing public figure whose rhetoric energized supporters and outraged opponents; sources note his influence in conservative circles and cite prior controversial statements that had already drawn criticism ^{[6] [7]}. After his assassination, the environment intensified: outlets chronicled both institutional responses (UF’s personnel step) and government responses (visa revocations), as well as broader political movements invoking remembrance or policy action ^{[8] [9]}, demonstrating how his death triggered measures across different types of institutions ^{[8] [9]}.

6. What is disputed or omitted in available reporting

The supplied reporting does not offer a catalogue of colleges that rescinded invitations to host Kirk before the Utah shooting, nor does it detail university decisions to cancel scheduled Kirk appearances beyond the fact that UVU hosted the fatal event as the first fall tour stop ^[5]. Claims circulating on social media about specific cancellations or bans on invitations are not corroborated by these sources; therefore those assertions cannot be verified from the current set (not found in current reporting).

7. Why the record matters — free speech, campus policy, and political signaling

The UF case illustrates how universities may apply internal disciplinary rules in response to staff or faculty statements tied to campus events and public tragedies, while the federal visa moves show executive‑branch willingness to impose extraterritorial consequences for online speech perceived as celebrating political violence ^{[1] [2]}. These are different levers — institutional personnel policy versus immigration enforcement — and conflating them obscures which actors are making which decisions ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations: this summary relies solely on the set of provided sources; additional reporting may document other college rescissions or different rationales not included here (limitations framed honestly).