The panel appointed to review the undercover investigation of Students for Economic Justice made the right decision by choosing Quinn Wright, a student, to serve on the panel.
The panel was created to investigate the undercover infiltration of SEJ by the MSU police. Justification was based on the 1999 arson of Agriculture Hall and concerns that the group’s presence might present a problem during the May 2000 commencement speech given by World Bank President James Wolfensohn.
Former state representative and panel member Lynne Martinez said the panel asked MSU President M. Peter McPherson to approve the appointment of a student to offer new input.
SEJ members contend that the arson was attributed to a different, off-campus group, giving the police little reason to worry.
The panel plans to gather input from students and faculty and work with ASMSU, MSU’s undergraduate student government.
McPherson said he did not originally choose to have a student on the panel because the panel is already expected to report its findings to the Academic Governance System’s Committee on Student Affairs.
Members of SEJ believe a member of their organization should have been chosen for the panel.
As chairman of ASMSU’s Student Assembly, Wright is a good choice to represent the student body. He is arguably the most powerful student leader on campus and has contact with many student organizations and colleges.
An SEJ member would have made a poor panel member because of his or her potentially biased viewpoint of the infiltration, although the group certainly deserves to be involved in the investigation by attending panel meetings.
It is surprising that McPherson did not appoint a student to the panel to begin with, especially if he wants to look good to the student body. It should not have been the responsibility of the panel to request a student member.
Still, the panel is not likely to produce anything of value. The three original members were appointed by McPherson, whose reasons for creating a panel are questionable. Also, the investigation has a 100-day limit, leaving little time to accomplish anything useful.
Aside from that, the timing is poor. It is unfortunate that, with so few students on campus during the summer, the panel’s actions and findings will go largely unnoticed by the majority of the student body.
Overall, the investigation is a weak attempt on the part of the administration to amend the situation started by the infiltration.
It seems the student body feels somewhat apathetic toward the whole issue. If students paid more attention to news and issues happening on campus, this investigation might carry more importance.
The panel has little or no power to change policy or prevent future mistakes. At least it could take the opportunity to use this incident as a caution against future actions in the interest of students.
