## Balancing Security and Free Speech on College Campuses
The recent shooting targeting conservative speaker Charlie Kirk at the University of Utah has reignited the debate surrounding security measures for controversial events on college campuses. Despite the presence of six university police officers and Kirk’s personal security detail,some attendees reported a minimal security presence,specifically noting the lack of bag checks upon entry.
The incident underscores the complex challenge faced by university administrators and law enforcement: balancing the need to ensure safety with the commitment to upholding free expression. Richard beary, former police chief at the University of Central florida, emphasizes there’s no standardized formula for event security. “You’re constantly trying to evaluate the security need versus the freedom on campus,” he explains. “It’s a constant balancing act…and sometimes people don’t like it.” beary recounts how the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando prompted his department to significantly revise security protocols for large gatherings, including football games.
This tension is a long-standing concern for organizations like the Foundation for individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Robert Shibley, FIRE’s special counsel for campus advocacy, argues that violence against speakers fundamentally threatens democratic discourse. “Whether it’s Charlie Kirk or Salman Rushdie…these folks who are brave enough to come out and talk about their own controversial views…that’s a essential part of how our democracy is supposed to work,” he states, adding that college campuses are notably crucial spaces for such debate.
Recent data from FIRE’s latest College Free Speech ranking, released shortly before the Utah shooting, reveals concerning trends in student attitudes. The report (available here) shows a slight increase in the percentage of students who find it acceptable to shout down speakers (74%) and, more alarmingly, a rise in those who believe violence is sometimes justifiable to silence speech (34%).
Historically, free speech advocates have accused some universities of utilizing safety concerns as a pretext to cancel events likely to draw protests – a practice known as the “heckler’s veto.” Following the Kirk shooting, some security experts now fear a new, more dangerous precedent: the “assassin’s veto.” Shibley shares this concern, warning that increased acceptance of violence could lead to a dangerous escalation of political conflict. ”The more acceptable people see violence as being, the more likely we are to see people resort to that,” he cautions.
However, not all campus law enforcement leaders anticipate drastic changes.Rodney Chatman, vice president of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA) and head of campus police at Brown University, believes a “heightened level of diligence around best practices” is a more likely response.He remains optimistic that politically charged events can continue, emphasizing the importance of universities as spaces for the exchange of ideas. Chatman advocates for “more effort, more planning, more shared understanding” between organizers and law enforcement to mitigate risks associated with large outdoor events.
