Deadly Indifference: The University’s Role in Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on the Utah Valley University (UVU) campus was a tragedy that shocked the nation. But what has been equally striking is UVU’s seeming indifference to its own responsibility in the events leading up to Kirk’s death.

A recent notice of claim filed by Kirk’s family alleges “stunning failures and reckless decisions” on the part of UVU, which allowed a rooftop shooter to fire from 415 feet away with seemingly no obstacles in his path. This account is at odds with the university’s response, led by Chief of Police Jeffrey Long, who claimed that he had worked closely with Kirk’s private security team to establish security protocols for the event.

The family’s notice of claim also alleges that UVU ignored a tip from Turning Point USA about the risk of rooftop access on campus. This raises questions about the university’s ability to assess and mitigate potential risks. Given the nationwide tour in which Kirk was participating, it is reasonable to assume that UVU would have been aware of the potential risks involved.

UVU’s failure to conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor location for Kirk’s speech is particularly disturbing. Instead of taking steps to mitigate those risks, the university seemed to rely on a cursory security plan that left its own officers woefully unprepared. This lack of preparation is all the more striking given the university’s knowledge of similar incidents involving public figures and rooftop shooters.

The attempted assassination of President Trump by a rooftop sniper in 2024 and other high-profile incidents of violence against public figures should have been familiar to UVU’s security team. Yet it appears that these warnings fell on deaf ears, leaving us to pick up the pieces after one of the most prominent voices on the American right was silenced in cold blood.

The Kirk family’s notice of claim is a crucial step towards holding UVU accountable for its role in this tragedy. It also raises deeper questions about the state of our society, where public figures are increasingly targeted with violence and intimidation – and where universities seem all too willing to turn a blind eye to these risks.

The fact that six campus police officers were assigned to the event, including some in plainclothes monitoring the crowd, suggests that security was not entirely absent from this scene. However, it also raises questions about why more wasn’t done to prevent the shooter’s access to the rooftop and what steps UVU could have taken to prevent this tragedy.

The aftermath of Kirk’s death has been marked by outrage and shock among his supporters, but it is time for us to move beyond mere outrage towards concrete action. The university must be held accountable for its role in this tragedy, and institutions like UVU must take steps to ensure that similar events are prevented in the future.

In the end, Charlie Kirk’s assassination serves as a stark reminder of just how fragile our democracy can be – and how vulnerable even the most prominent voices among us can be to violence and intimidation. As we move forward from this terrible event, it is time for institutions like UVU to take responsibility for their role in preventing such tragedies – and for all of us to demand that our universities do better when it comes to protecting the safety and security of public figures on campus.