February 2026 | The New Jersey Police Chief Magazine 21 E
In the aftermath, familiar questions emerged: Could the suspect have been identified earlier? Were warning signs missed? Should intervention have occurred sooner? These questions are understandable, but they often obscure a more difficult truth. University public safety leaders are routinely expected to perform flawlessly inside systems that deny them timely intelligence, decisive authority, operational independence and institutional alignment. When tragedy occurs, scrutiny falls on those at the tactical edge, not on the governance and structural constraints that limit their ability to act.
Brown is not an anomaly North American universities are, by design, open environments. Academic buildings are accessible. Classrooms remain unlocked. Perimeters are porous. These features reflect deeply held academic values, but they are also explicit risk decisions in a threat environment shaped by grievance-driven violence, ideological radicalization and unpredictable lone actors. Openness without layered security is no longer a neutral posture. It is an operational vulnerability.
University law enforcement and security administrators understand this reality better than anyone, yet many operate within governance structures where security decisions are filtered through multiple administrative layers, competing political pressures and leadership teams with limited experience in law enforcement, emergency management or crisis response.
Too often, campus security functions are treated as cost centers rather than essential safety infrastructure. In some cases, public safety leaders are politicized, marginalized, or routinely second-guessed, undermining deterrence, delaying response and eroding preparedness. The result is a dangerous paradox: university public safety leaders are expected to prevent every threat, manage every crisis, preserve civil liberties perfectly and absorb blame when tragedy occurs, despite operating inside systems that constrain decisive action.
Violence on university campuses is no longer rare The past year alone has seen fatal shootings at Florida State University, Elizabeth City State University, Kentucky State University and Utah Valley University, along with targeted killings and hate-driven violence on and around campuses nationwide. These incidents are not isolated. They are warning signals. Campuses have become attractive targets precisely because they are symbolic, emotionally charged, densely populated and accessible. This risk is further amplified by protest-driven unrest, online radicalization and foreign influence operations designed to exploit social divisions and institutional hesitation.
University public safety administrators now stand at the front line of this convergence— often with fewer resources, less authority and less intelligence support than the threat environment demands. This raises the unavoidable question: What must change if universities, states and the federal government are serious about preventing the next tragedy?
A blueprint for campus safety If higher education leaders and policymakers are serious about prevention, several reforms need to be considered as no longer optional.
First, campus public safety must be treated as essential infrastructure, not discretionary spending. University boards should establish protected baseline funding for law enforcement and security operations, insulated from annual budget cycles and political volatility.
Second, university law enforcement and security leadership must have operational independence and direct access to senior leadership. Public safety leaders should report directly to the university president or a senior executive with law enforcement or security expertise. In crisis response, delayed decision-making costs lives.
Third, campuses must modernize security through technology and intelligence integration. Strategically deployed surveillance, access controls where appropriate, real-time communications, drones and emerging response technologies can significantly enhance safety without turning campuses into fortified zones.
Continued on page 26