On Friday, the Board of Trustees could speak for the first time about last year’s undercover police investigation of a student activist group. MSU’s governing body is expected to consider a resolution that would express its intention that such an investigation only take place in “extraordinary circumstances.”
The board should pass this resolution and reassure campus that the role of this university is still to be a place where freedom of expression can be explored without fear of interference.
MSU Trustee Colleen McNamara, a student activist herself when a student here, should be commended for proposing this resolution.
Although not a formal policy, the resolution gives a broad statement of ideals to guide campus police in conducting investigations. It is a step in the right direction which all trustees should endorse.
Of course, this does not imply this resolution is a definitive end to this controversy.
Beginning in February of last year, MSU police used an undercover officer to investigate the group United Students Against Sweatshops, the forerunner of Students for Economic Justice. When news of the investigation surfaced earlier this year, a public debate surfaced over the appropriateness of the action, as well as an investigation into the event by university officials.
Under the board’s resolution, MSU President M. Peter McPherson and his staff are expected to create guidelines in the coming months to determine the steps and circumstances under which such an investigation is necessary. McPherson is currently chairing a campus committee to examine student-police relationships which should be used to mold such rules.
It is understandable trustees, with no law enforcement experience, would not provide a step-by-step policy for future surveillance of student groups, but a stronger stance may be necessary in the future, if only as a symbolic gesture.
Once administrative guidelines are completed, the board should reinforce its position by publicly endorsing or opposing them.
But the vagueness of the term “extraordinary circumstances” leaves much to be desired to determine when an investigation can be used. Some discretion may be necessary to allow law enforcement to do its job effectively, but an ambiguous phrase does not secure students’ right to freedom of assembly.
Clear guidelines are necessary to ensure this course of action will be pursued only if police can reasonably foresee danger to the community. Freedom of expression should never be compromised because of mere fear or a lack of information.
Looking back at this investigation it seems officials reacted too quickly to send an undercover officer to United Students Against Sweatshops meetings. There was no evidence this group had violent tendencies.
But safety concerns did become a real issue once police identified a suspect in the New Year’s Eve 1999 arson of Agriculture Hall. We believe such an investigation of a known terrorist attack constitutes the board’s intended meaning of “extraordinary circumstances.”
The job of MSU’s eight trustees is far from done once it takes up this resolution Friday. Trustees must remain diligent until more specific language and a formal administrative policy is enacted.
But this statement is certainly a needed voice in our campus community.
