While new rules released by MSU President M. Peter McPherson are meant to protect campus political and social activism from undercover investigations, we’re forced to wonder how effective they will be.
These new guidelines, released Monday, define the “extraordinary circumstances” under which the MSUBoard of Trustees will allow such an investigation. Under the rules, police must show reasonable cause that a group’s actions could lead to a loss of life, physical harm or substantial property damage.
But as McPherson told The State News on Monday, these guidelines would not have stopped the undercover investigation of a campus activist group that stirred this controversy in the first place.
In April 2001, it was discovered MSUpolice sent an undercover officer into United Students Against Sweatshops, now known as Students for Economic Justice, to pose as a student for four months in 2000. University officials, including McPherson, had approved the investigation.
In response to a campus outcry, McPherson formed an independent panel to examine the investigation and created the Task Force on Student-Police Relations in response to criticism over the incident.
The four-member independent panel - which included three people hand-picked by McPherson - found the undercover investigation was unethical and should not have taken place. Other legal experts, including the ACLU and former Attorney General Frank Kelley, questioned the action on a college campus.
But while McPherson said he has regrets about the way the incident was handled, he still would have OK’d the infiltration with the new policy. The only difference now is MSUofficials would have to publicly document the investigation.
Campus officials said they feared violence erupting at MSU after learning some members of Students for Economic Justice attended the April 2000 protests against the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in Washington, D.C., and the November 1999 protest against the World Trade Organization in Seattle.
Officials later said the undercover investigation was approved after a “specific, identified subject” within the group was examined in connection with the New Year’s Eve 1999 arson of Agriculture Hall.
The infiltration affair is reminiscent of the Michigan’s “Red Squad” controversy of the 1960s and ’70s, when state police unconstitutionally gathered information about people they feared might have anti-American sentiments.
If university officials have reason to suspect students - or student groups - are involved in any criminal activity, they have the right to request search warrants and perform investigations.
But without a reasonable suspicion that security is threatened, MSU police should not have a right to infiltrate political or social activist groups. Such a move only serves to chill free speech on campus.
The policy is a step in the right direction, but these guidelines seem to continue to be more protective of university and police interests than student interests.
Although undercover guidelines are now in place at MSU, the danger of police infringing on students’ rights hasn’t gone away.
