Catholic and private school leaders in Minnesota had long expressed growing alarm about the safety of their students, but their concerns reached a pointed urgency in 2023, when they formally warned Governor Tim Walz that nonpublic schools were in what they described as “urgent and critical need” of security support. Their plea, sent nearly a year before the devastating shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic school that left two people dead and seventeen injured, resurfaced with new force as communities and lawmakers reexamined the warnings that had gone largely unheeded. The April 14, 2023 letter—signed by Minnesota Catholic Conference executive director Jason Adkins and MINNDEPENDENT president Tim Benz—offered a sobering portrait of the escalating threats facing the state’s religious and private institutions. “Our schools are under attack,” they wrote, clarifying that this was not alarmism but a reflection of real and documented risks. The letter was made public when the Daily Wire released it and remains available on the Minnesota Catholic Conference’s website, a reminder that past concerns were not born from hindsight but from a sustained attempt to expand the state’s approach to school safety. While some Minnesotans at the time viewed the message as merely part of a national debate over campus security, leaders within the Catholic and private school systems saw it as a necessary call to protect tens of thousands of students and educators who were housed in older buildings, often without modern security infrastructure. When the Minneapolis shooting unfolded, many parents and educators pointed back to the 2023 letter as evidence that the risks had been known, documented, and publicly raised—yet not meaningfully addressed.

The urgency expressed by private school leaders in 2023 did not emerge in isolation. Their warning came just a week after the Covenant Christian School shooting in Nashville, where three children and three adults were killed in a targeted attack that shocked the nation and amplified concerns about school security nationwide. For Adkins and Benz, the Nashville tragedy offered a painful illustration of the vulnerabilities shared by faith-based and independent schools across the country—institutions that frequently lack the financial resources, security staffing, or infrastructure upgrades available to public districts. Their letter emphasized that Minnesota’s private schools, regardless of religious affiliation, were experiencing increasing threats that ranged from online harassment to vandalism, anti-religious hostility, and fears of targeted violence. They noted that more than 72,000 Minnesota students attend nonpublic schools—a population too large, they argued, to be sidelined from state-run safety initiatives. Their request was clear: include $50 million in the state’s Education Finance Bill to make private schools eligible for the Building and Cyber Security Grant Program and the Safe Schools Program. These programs fund critical measures such as secure entrances, surveillance technology, emergency communications, mental health services, cybersecurity protections, and threat-assessment training. Adkins and Benz argued that excluding nonpublic schools not only created a dangerous imbalance but undermined the state’s overarching goal of protecting children. Their tone was firm yet measured—a blend of frustration over past inaction and a renewed insistence that safety should not hinge on whether a school is funded by tuition, donations, or tax levies.

The request, however, was only the latest in a series of appeals dating back years. In 2022, the Minnesota Catholic bishops—including Archbishop Bernard Hebda of St. Paul and Minneapolis—had similarly urged lawmakers to include private schools in statewide safety funding initiatives. They cited local incidents of vandalism, threats, and harassment as proof that Minnesota’s religious institutions were not insulated from the dangers seen elsewhere in the country. Despite these appeals, key funding programs remained limited to public school districts, charter schools, and cooperative education entities. State officials defended the structure by noting that private schools lack the local tax-levy framework required for participation, meaning they cannot match funds in the same manner public schools can. But to school leaders, such explanations felt disconnected from the broader ethical and practical reality: threats do not differentiate between public and private buildings, and safety should not be contingent on how a school’s budget is structured. They argued that programs funded through statewide appropriations—not local levies—could easily be extended to nonpublic institutions if lawmakers chose to do so. Their frustration centered on what they saw as a contradiction: Minnesota publicly acknowledged rising threats to religious institutions in other policy areas, yet left private schools without meaningful access to the very programs designed to address such risks. As long as the state maintained its narrow funding framework, they argued, thousands of Minnesota students remained unnecessarily vulnerable.

Following intense public scrutiny in the aftermath of the Minneapolis Catholic school shooting, Governor Tim Walz’s office issued a statement to Fox News defending the administration’s record. A spokesperson pointed out that private schools do receive certain forms of state support, including participation in training offered by the Minnesota School Safety Center. The spokesperson emphasized that “the governor cares deeply about the safety of students and has signed into law millions in funding for school safety.” But for Catholic and private school advocates, these assurances missed the essential point. Training alone, they said, cannot substitute for the physical and technological upgrades required to protect students in an era of evolving threats. The Building and Cyber Security Grant Program, for example, funds reinforced doors, shatter-resistant glass, updated surveillance systems, secure entry vestibules, professional security staff, and modern real-time communication tools—resources unavailable to private schools under current rules. Critics argued that describing the situation as a structural limitation downplayed its real-world consequences. Some community members questioned whether political discomfort about supporting religious institutions played an indirect role, though state officials denied this. Ultimately, the debate exposed a broader tension within American education: how to reconcile constitutional boundaries, funding models, and the state’s responsibility to protect all children equally, regardless of the type of school they attend.

In the weeks after the tragedy, Minnesotans revisited the 2023 letter with renewed scrutiny and sorrow. What once read as a policy request had taken on the weight of a prediction. Many parents questioned why it had not prompted more decisive action. Others wondered whether earlier investments in security infrastructure could have prevented the attack or reduced its severity. Education advocates argued that the conversation about school safety should never have been framed as a competition between public and private institutions. Instead, they said, it should have acknowledged the practical realities facing nonpublic schools: many operate in decades-old buildings, rely heavily on tuition and fundraising, and lack the financial flexibility to implement expensive security upgrades without state assistance. Unlike public districts, they cannot lean on legally mandated levies to fund major safety improvements. This forces private school leaders into an impossible choice—invest in academic programs or invest in safety. Advocates contend that such a choice is fundamentally unfair, especially when the state already recognizes its role in protecting children across public systems. The tragedy reignited a critical question: does Minnesota’s funding structure reflect its stated commitment to keeping all students safe, or does it leave gaps that put some communities at greater risk?

As lawmakers, parents, and educators search for a path forward, many view the Minneapolis shooting as a turning point—an inflection moment that demands reflection as well as action. Advocates for nonpublic schools argue that the state must adopt a more inclusive approach to safety funding going forward, one that acknowledges that threats do not discriminate and that all Minnesota students deserve equal protection. They propose expanding eligibility for state-funded safety programs, especially those financed through general appropriations rather than local levies. Some legislators have expressed willingness to revisit past decisions, while others continue to emphasize legal obstacles. Meanwhile, communities across Minnesota insist that proactive action is necessary and that waiting for another tragedy would be both morally unacceptable and strategically shortsighted. The voices of Adkins, Benz, and other private school advocates echo louder now than they did in 2023: their warnings were not political gambits but attempts to fulfill their duty to the children, educators, and clergy in their care. As public debate continues, Minnesota faces a pivotal question—will the state redefine its framework for school safety to include all institutions equally, or will longstanding structural limitations continue to leave thousands of students without full access to critical resources? For many, the answer will shape not only policy but the broader public trust in the state’s commitment to protecting every child, regardless of where they learn.