Open Campuses Require Strategic Security Planning

Picture a typical Thursday afternoon on a major university campus: thousands of students moving between classes, labs and work-study jobs. Visiting researchers, touring parents and community members flow freely across hundreds of acres and dozens of buildings. No checkpoints. No credentials required. This is the open campus model that has defined higher education for generations — and it’s under pressure like never before.

Recent security incidents at universities nationwide have forced administrators to confront an uncomfortable question: Can we maintain the openness that makes campus life vibrant while ensuring the safety our communities deserve?

Open Campuses Face a Number of Physical Security Vulnerabilities

The benefits of open campuses are significant and shouldn’t be dismissed lightly. Large public universities typically enroll around 30,000 students, each with fluid schedules dictated by class times, work commitments and extracurricular activities. Unlike the structured day of a K–12 student, college life demands flexibility.

Click the banner below to read the latest CDW Cybersecurity Research report.

While a “closed” campus may sound more secure, trying to impose a fully closed model at this scale would fundamentally reshape the higher education experience. It would require students, professors and staff to stop at checkpoints multiple times a day just to attend class or access offices. Guest lecturers, research collaborators, visiting parents and community members would face additional barriers simply to participate in campus life. 

The result isn’t just inconvenience; it’s friction that slows movement, strains resources and erodes the openness that has long defined higher education. Moving to a more restricted model also has significant financial implications. Implementing comprehensive access control systems, enrolling thousands of people and maintaining the technology requires substantial investment at a time when many institutions are already facing budget pressures.

But the cultural costs may be even more significant. When people feel inconvenienced, they find workarounds. Doors get propped open. Credentials are shared. The very systems designed to enhance security can be undermined by those they’re meant to protect. 

While a “closed” campus may sound more secure, trying to impose a fully closed model at this scale would fundamentally reshape the higher education experience. It would require students, professors and staff to stop at checkpoints multiple times a day just to attend class or access offices. Guest lecturers, research collaborators, visiting parents and community members would face additional barriers simply to participate in campus life. 

The result isn’t just inconvenience; it’s friction that slows movement, strains resources and erodes the openness that has long defined higher education. Moving to a more restricted model also has significant financial implications. Implementing comprehensive access control systems, enrolling thousands of people and maintaining the technology requires substantial investment at a time when many institutions are already facing budget pressures.

But the cultural costs may be even more significant. When people feel inconvenienced, they find workarounds. Doors get propped open. Credentials are shared. The very systems designed to enhance security can be undermined by those they’re meant to protect.

Is your physical security environment as modern as it could be?

The perception is that colleges and universities can either remain open and accept risk or lock down campuses in ways that compromise accessibility and culture — but this is a false choice. In practice, institutions don’t have to choose between these extremes. With a layered approach to security, one that combines people, policies and integrated technologies, campuses can strengthen safety while preserving the freedom of movement that makes their environments vibrant.

Open Campuses Can Use Technology as Part of the Solution

Recent incidents have revealed an important truth: Keeping campuses safe requires a multilayered approach to security. Cameras can only see what they see, and technology alone cannot create a complete security solution. What’s needed is an approach in which systems and people work together, each familiar with their role in the larger security framework.

For open campuses, the most effective technology solutions are open architecture systems, platforms designed to integrate seamlessly with one another. A layered security approach may include video surveillance, access control, audio analytics, mass notification and communication tools, and digital signage, all working together to provide awareness, detection, communication and response.

READ MORE: Securing a campus requires layers of safety measures. 

For example, with dozens or even hundreds of buildings to secure, the ability to manage access control remotely and uniformly across campus becomes critical. During campuswide emergencies, security teams need to be able to lock all buildings from a central location while pushing alerts to phones, digital signage and public address systems to guide people to safety. That same flexibility matters at the room level. In many cases, professors don’t have keys to secure individual classrooms, limiting their ability to respond quickly during an active threat. Integrated access control systems that support both centralized lockdowns and individual room security add a critical layer of protection without disrupting daily campus flow.

Security Planning Comes With Common Pitfalls 

The most common gaps in campus security planning aren’t technological; they’re human. Even the most advanced systems fall short without clear policies and procedures guiding how people should respond when something happens. If someone notices a suspicious person, what’s the next step? Do they lock nearby doors? Which doors? Do they call campus security, local law enforcement or both?

Enrollment into access control systems isn’t always smooth and can lack adequate follow-up, with insufficient processes to ensure only authorized individuals retain access. Training starts intensely but fades over time, leading to complacency. And when security protocols are treated as suggestions rather than requirements, people stop reporting suspicious activity and look for workarounds, undermining the very protections designed to keep them safe.

UP NEXT: Modern physical security systems helps institutions take a proactive approach to safety.

Best practices start with communication. Everyone on campus — students, faculty, staff and visitors — must understand that security is a shared responsibility. This isn’t about creating a culture of suspicion but rather building collective awareness. People need permission and encouragement to speak up when something doesn’t feel right.

Finding the Right Balance for Each Campus Means Identifying Individual Needs

The truth is, there is no universal solution. Each campus must conduct an honest assessment of where it stands and where it wants to be — not where peer institutions are, but what makes sense for its unique environment, student body and mission. That assessment should generate data that can inform meaningful planning rather than reactive responses to the latest incident. 

Higher education will likely face continued pressure to implement enhanced security measures. But with thoughtful planning, integrated technology solutions and shared responsibility, it’s possible to create safer campuses without sacrificing accessibility and community. The goal shouldn’t be to turn campuses into fortresses but to build resilient communities where safety and openness can coexist.