I see this as a constitutional issue which is larger than even the second amendment.
Universities are not entities unto themselves. In most cases they are substantially subsidized by the federal government. Even if they were not, can you imagine a university being permitted to decide that it would not feed African-Americans in its cafeteria?
Yet the same university will blatantly discriminate against whites in its admissions policy.
Universities will disregard the law concerning ROTC and recruitment on campus while they accept federal funds.
The very same university that will ban guns in the building may not discriminate against African Americans in its buildings merely because they are the universitie's buildings. Consider how explicit is the constitutional right to bear arms, far more explicit than the right to be treated without reference to your race by a quasi-private, quasi public institution such as a university, yet it is the less clear constitutional right which is vigorously enforced.
The Constitution does not cut out educational fiefdoms to be immune from the articles or the Bill of Rights.
Nathan, back when the 2A was written society was more homogenous and as such liberties were readily accepted along with the risks inherent in them.
Over the years the changing demographics and culture have convinced many (liberals) that certain liberties aren't worth the risk as demonstrated by the few who abuse them (bangas, killas, thugs, etc.).
Yet, by current standards of violence the need for armed citizens is greater now than it was then. The utopian mastermind simply red-lines those parts of the Constitution they don't like (living document) and we proceed toward tyranny.
As Mark Levin says, liberalism cannot co-exist in a society with constitutional limits. Unmoored from the wisdom contained in our nation's charter we are adrift on powerful currents toward tyranny as we inevitably toss liberties overboard in an attempt to stay afloat. This can't end well.
The only solution is to re-attach a line to the rock-solid foundation that guarantees our freedom. At some point though, we may not have such a line available and fate won't be so kind to us.
Personally, I'd accept any person's reasonably demonstrated proficiency with a gun as sufficient evidence that no further restrictions be placed on their right to carry a gun- anywhere (with the possible exception being a courtroom where tensions by nature can run very high).
Those places with the strictest gun controls have demonstrated the fault in the logic of anti-gun types by racking up the highest body counts. New York and Chicago lead the country in both categories.