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.
Together, these examples illustrate a troubling pattern. Institutions lean on “safety” and “procedures” either to justify limiting voices or to explain away failures after violence occurs. In both cases, the underlying issue is the same: higher education has not yet reconciled its legal obligations with its responsibility to foster environments that are genuinely safe, inclusive, and educational.
This tension sits at the heart of the time, place, and manner doctrine. Public universities must provide access to campus space for speakers who follow formal procedures. Private institutions have more discretion but still face pressure to present themselves as champions of open dialogue. Both types of institutions use the language of neutrality to protect themselves legally and politically, yet their decisions reveal clear values. Whose voices are prioritized? Whose safety is guaranteed? Whose harm is minimized or ignored?
The history of campus events reminds us that universities are not passive stages for public debate. They are curators of space and climate. When they host controversial speakers, they are not simply “allowing” speech, they are shaping the conditions under which speech, protest, and community response will unfold. This means institutions cannot escape accountability by pointing to procedures. Policies are written, interpreted, and enforced by people, and those choices either mitigate risk or magnify it.
Some institutions have taken this responsibility seriously. After violent protests at the University of Virginia in 2017, the institution rewrote its policies on outdoor events and adopted stronger security measures for large public gatherings. Others, however, have continued to cling to minimal compliance models that leave campuses vulnerable. The lesson is clear: waiting until violence occurs is too late.
So, the questions linger: When universities “follow procedure” but fail to ensure safety, who is accountable? What responsibility does a public institution bear when creating conditions that invite violence under the guise of neutrality? And how should we recalibrate the balance between the right to assemble and the duty to protect?
The answers cannot be postponed. Higher education must recognize that the current political climate is not an abstract challenge but an immediate threat. Campus leaders must adopt proactive approaches to event planning that weigh safety alongside legality, institutional climate alongside public access, and community trust alongside political neutrality.
It is time to face the responsibilities higher education holds. This means revisiting how time, place, and manner restrictions are applied, acknowledging the distinctions between public and private institutions, and learning from recent flashpoints where public events spiraled into crises. Universities cannot continue to hide behind procedural compliance while communities are left to pick up the pieces. The call to action is clear: institutions must adopt event policies that take seriously not only legality, but also climate, community safety, and the lived realities of those who call the campus home.
__________
Dr. Branden D. Elmore is a Research Project Manager at the QEM Network in Washington, D.C. He is a former research professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, with a background in institutional climate assessments and research on university crisis communications.
