The September 10 killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has raised significant questions regarding American political division, first amendment rights, and gun regulation. Perhaps the most pressing concern is how the shooter was not only allowed to enter Utah Valley University’s (UVU) campus, but to move about it freely with a weapon.  

Following the shooting, colleges nationwide have made statements, condemning political violence while defending their own security policies. Since there has been no public response from Pace, it is worth examining the Pleasantville campus’ safety to reassure students, staff, families, and guests— or to expose inadequacies. 

I reached out to Brain Anderson, Associate Vice President of Safety and Emergency Management, who was able to expand on the information published to Pace’s website. 

#1: Entry 

Let’s start from the beginning. Like most of Kirk’s campus events, attendees had to purchase tickets to enter the UVU event. However, according to a student present that day, “We didn’t have to show our IDs to anyone. I had bought a ticket online, but there weren’t any checkpoints, so we basically just walked right in, and no one stopped us.” This implies that Kirk’s shooter would’ve had no issue moving around the event.  

Additionally, UVU has no security gates, meaning there was zero identity verification required to be on campus at all. 

Pace does have security gates and a newly implemented “SPLAN visitor management system.” Anderson explains that the two security booths at entrances one and three serve as a “highly visible, immediate point of contact for anyone entering the campus who may have a security concern or need assistance.” However, this presents the booths more as informational resources than actual protection. 

Additionally, at RHA’s Town Hall, security manager Hector Arocena stated that entrance three’s booth is staffed “24/7,” but admitted that entrance one’s booth is often closed, especially at night. This presents a serious concern if someone walked onto campus, like Kirk’s assassin, while this gate is unmanned. 

Perhaps most concerning is the ID checks that take place at these gates. Several students have raised concerns of guards only occasionally verifying students’ IDs, let alone guests or vehicle passengers. Some students even have testimony of gate guards letting students in with other cards, or none at all.  

Anderson addresses this inconsistency by stating that “authorized vehicles and individuals[…]are permitted onto the campus, especially during non-business hours.” While this reinforces the gate’s effectiveness on nights and weekends, it is still problematic considering that Kirk’s assassin entered UVU’s campus during business hours. 

#2: Security Personnel 

The largest scrutiny towards UVU has been their lack of security personnel. According to KUTV, the university employed only 6 campus police for a crowd of 3,000, despite having a total force of 23 officers. For comparison, the University of Utah utilizes 46 officers and a drone. Clearly, UVU underestimated the number of officers needed to supervise such a large political event and figure. 

While Anderson would not disclose an exact number of security officers as to “not create a security vulnerability,” he did detail the staff that make up campus security, including “professional in-house security staff with years of first responder experience,” “team members from a uniform security guard company, Allied Universal,” and “external police and emergency services when warranted.”  

When asked about specialized security technology, Anderson listed many familiar devices, such as card access readers, closed-circuit cameras (CCTV), call boxes, and the PaceSafe app. Anderson also mentioned “magnetometers at large special events,” which can detect weapons and suspicious items. While it is unclear if UVU used magnetometers, it is promising that Pace employs such technologies to alert authorities of imminent danger.  

Unlike the University of Utah, Anderson explained that Pace doesn’t utilize drones because “the Office of Safety and Security relies on its established, proven, and comprehensive suite of physical and digital security protocols.” However, we have learned from UVU that it is not how “established, proven, and comprehensive” the technologies themselves are, but how they are used by the security department that is important. 

#3: Alert System 

Immediately after Kirk was shot, a UVU student stated there was “no PA announcement regarding a lockdown,” and students didn’t receive a message from the university until 20 minutes after the shooting. Another student even estimated an hour between the assassination and when law enforcement finally began evacuation.  

In contrast, a UVU professor said they did receive a notification: “Active shooter at [insert location] run, hide, fight.” The fact students and professors weren’t equally prioritized by alerts indicates serious imbalance in UVU’s emergency systems. 

Pace has already tested both their PaceAlert messages and evacuation drills this semester, and mandated SafeColleges active shooter training. Pace has also published their active shooter and evacuation procedures, which include very general instructions like “leave your belongings behind” and “do not congregate.”  

In addition, Pace’s 2025 Annual Fire and Safety Report details “Timely Warnings,” which are sent to all Pace students, staff, and visitors “upon confirmation of a significant emergency.” However, the report doesn’t give a time frame of how quickly these warnings are sent. While these measures should work in theory, it is unclear how effective they actually are in practice. 

The Verdict 

So, is Pace safe? On the Pleasantville campus, the most serious fault in its security appears to be obvious inconsistencies in security staffing, ID verification, and student-security transparency. To avoid being labeled as “unsafe” as UVU, it is time for Pace to sharpen these safety measures and maintain direct communication with our community— whether or not we invite political figures.