Kirk family has powerful evidence — but Utah law could derail

You can have text messages, witness statements, security footage, all the proof in the world that Utah Valley University dropped the ball. And none of it matters if the state can just wave a law and say “sorry, we’re protected.” That’s where the Kirk family finds itself. Their son is gone under circumstances that look preventable, and the people who ran the campus have the ultimate shield: a government immunity statute written to keep public institutions out of the courtroom.

The details of this case reportedly point to genuine failures. Unexplained delays, missing responses, a campus environment where something went terribly wrong. But instead of facing those facts, the university will likely lean on a legal technicality. It’s a way of avoiding accountability without ever explaining a thing. That’s not due process. That’s a dodge. Families don’t sue because they want pity. They sue because they want answers, and sometimes they want to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else’s child.

Utah lawmakers need to hear that. No one is asking for cities or colleges to be bankrupted by frivolous suits. But this isn’t frivolous. A young man is dead, and credible evidence suggests negligence. If a private landlord ran a building that badly, they’d be in court tomorrow. The government should not get a free pass that a private citizen wouldn't get.

If the evidence is as strong as reported, the last thing UVU should want is to be rescued by a legal loophole. That doesn’t restore confidence in the school, it destroys it. Legislators who care about fairness can carve out a narrow exception for gross negligence on campus. That’s not an attack on the university. It’s a demand for basic responsibility. The Kirk family deserves their day in court. So does the memory of the son they lost.