From a critical standpoint, the term "unbiased" should always be taken with a grain of salt. As a case in point, consider the supposedly unbiased independent review commission set up in response to complaints of improper police actions during the April 2-3 disturbances. Is it really unbiased?

There's an old adage about opinions: something about everyone having one. The members who form this commission undoubtedly have their personal feelings about the events last April, and this is fine so long as there is an even mix of perspectives.

Unfortunately, it appears as if this is not the case. To begin with, the chairman of the commission is also the mayor of East Lansing, Mark Meadows, who has recently announced a possible campaign for the state Legislature. If this commission is supposed to be unbiased and independent, then why is the one in charge a highly visible public figure who presides over the East Lansing police? Meadows' opinions on these matters are certainly relevant, therefore he should be present on the commission. The position of chairperson, however, should be left for an unbiased outsider.

In fact, there should be an extensive reorganization of the commission now, before reviewing and discussions begin. There needs to be more representatives from different walks of life. Most noticeably, there are not enough average students, average East Lansing residents (who have no history of ties with the city government) and not enough police officers.

The commission would do well to consider how other police departments have responded to similar situations in the past. A good place to start would be to hear from police in other college towns, such as Champaign, Ill., Raleigh, N.C. or Boston, where an Emerson College student was killed by police actions last fall after a Red Sox playoff game. The East Lansing Police Department's post-game events report to the East Lansing City Council cited information from other police departments, and the commission should too.

Another concerning detail about the profile of the review commission is that there are no average students or residents of East Lansing. Nancy Schertzing might qualify as being representative of the average resident, but this is specious since she is a former chairperson of the Community Relations Coalition, a group already represented by Nate Barnes.

Furthermore, the student perspective is represented by only two individuals: Derek Wallbank of the University Student Commission and Andrew Schepers, the chairperson of ASMSU. What about a spot reserved for people who aren't a part of any organization at all, yet are still members of the community?

As it stands, it appears as if student voices will be drowned out in this commission, which seems likely to operate under the rubric that "students will riot no matter what." This is not the issue. On the contrary, the issue is whether the police's decision to use tear gas and other "less lethal" methods - such as tear-gas launchers, sting-ball grenades and 40 mm sponge launchers - were inappropriate. Considering that the April 2-3 disturbances resulted in only $5,775 in damages, a large portion of which can be accounted for by a stolen bronze duck statue (which not only has been returned, but from Ann Arbor), students' collective actions seem pretty tame. The key issue is whether or not the police responded in kind.

To answer this question fairly and effectively, there needs to be a truly independent group of people working on it. The group already formed is a good start. Additional choices would be MSU Vice President for Student Affairs Lee June, MSU Trustee Joel Ferguson, East Lansing residents and average college students. Without such additions, the commission is not up to the task at hand.