Dr. Branden D. Elmore
What failed? Safety, security, and foresight.
Reports indicate that Kirk requested an outdoor, central location, and the university complied. Yet campus police later admitted they had not “covered all the bases.” Six years earlier, when Kirk visited the same campus, the event was held indoors, with ticketed entry and tighter security. That shift raises an obvious question: why were safety measures loosened in a political climate that has only grown more volatile?
The university’s decision to accommodate the event in this way cannot be separated from the content of Kirk’s platform or its compatibility with campus values. By prioritizing visibility and broader public appeal, the institution disregarded the harm his rhetoric posed to members of its own community. This is not neutrality. It is a political choice cloaked as procedural compliance.
Higher education leaders often claim to be “apolitical,” but neutrality itself is a strategy, one shaped by economics, politics, and institutional branding. When violence erupts, responsibility is displaced: administrators point to free speech protections, public officials blame university leaders, and outside groups invoke “cancel culture.” Lost in this shuffle is the truth that institutional policies and practices, particularly those governing public events, are at the root.
These questions are not unique to Utah Valley University. At the University of Southern California in 2024, administrators canceled the valedictorian’s speech, citing safety concerns tied to her pro-Palestinian views. The decision drew national debate about whether “safety” was being used selectively to silence certain voices rather than to protect the campus community. At UC Berkeley, a lecture organized by Jewish student groups was evacuated when protests escalated, illustrating how even planned safety measures can collapse when tensions boil over. More recently, at Texas Tech University, a vigil for Charlie Kirk after the Utah Valley tragedy became another flashpoint when a student’s disruption led to her arrest and expulsion.
And exactly two weeks after the Utah Valley incident, Tennessee State University removed a group of conservative men who had gathered on campus without permission, citing university policies. In this case, institutional leaders acted swiftly to enforce guidelines, protect their students, and preserve the climate of an HBCU committed to its mission. This example highlights the other side of institutional responsibility: the willingness to apply policies consistently and prioritize safety and mission alignment, especially at HBCUs and other Minority-Serving Institutions now facing heightened external threats.
