Pubdate: Fri, 09 Nov 2001
Source: Daily Iowan, The (IA Edu)
Section: Nation/World
Copyright: 2001 The Daily Iowan
Contact:  http://www.dailyiowan.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/937
Author: Anne Gearan (AP)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

HIGH COURT PONDERS DRUG TESTS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether schools 
may give drug tests to nearly any student involved in after-school 
activities, from the chess club to cheerleading, without evidence the 
student or the school has a drug problem.

Critics say such broad testing is unconstitutional and a step toward 
universal screening. Supporters say it is necessary in the face of drug use 
by young people. "I felt they were accusing us and convicting us before 
they had given us a chance," said Lindsey Earls, who sang in her high 
school choir and participated on an academic quiz team when testing began 
in Tecumseh, Okla.

Only children involved in competitive extracurricular activities were 
tested on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, they had 
opened themselves to greater scrutiny than other students.

"The board did perceive that there was a drug problem among the students 
and wanted to help E give students a reason to say no," said Stephanie 
Mather, a lawyer for the school. "It was a deterrent. A student could say, 
'I want to participate in this band competition, so I'm not going to do 
that.' "

The Supreme Court ruling, expected by summer, could answer a question 
lingering from a major 1995 case, when the court said a school with a 
pervasive drug problem could subject student athletes to drug tests.

In that 6-3 decision, the court did not address schoolwide testing or 
extracurricular activities apart from athletics. It is not clear whether an 
answer in this case would apply to all extracurricular activities or only 
to competitive pursuits.

The National School Boards Association has no estimate for the number of 
children involved in extracurricular activities nationally, but the 
Oklahoma school said it assumed its policy would cover a large percentage 
of students.

The case involves a decision by the Board of Education in rural Tecumseh, 
40 miles from Oklahoma City, to begin "suspicionless" drug testing in the 
fall of 1998.

The board had considered testing all students in the School District but 
settled for the smaller program in light of previous court challenges 
elsewhere. The school acknowledges that students involved in such 
activities as band and the pompom team are not more likely than others to 
be involved with drugs and has said there was no severe drug problem in the 
school.

"It was not where the problem was, but where they thought they could, in 
essence, legally get away with doing the testing," said Graham Boyd, the 
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer handling the case.

Earls was given a urine test in 1999. The test came back negative, and she 
and her family sued.

"It was horrible. Someone would stand outside the bathroom stall and 
listen," said Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth.

A federal appeals court ruled earlier this year that the tests violated the 
Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

The case turns on whether schools have to prove the existence of narcotics 
problems before testing children and if testing is appropriate only for 
students involved in potentially dangerous activities, such as sports or 
students who voluntarily have given up some expectations of privacy.