Pubdate: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 Source: Topeka Capital-Journal (KS) Copyright: 2001 The Topeka Capital-Journal Contact: http://cjonline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/455 DRUG TESTING -- TESTING THE LIMITS One supposes it's not much of a leap: If you're going to test high school football players for drugs, why not the school's chess club? It's just making extracurricular activity requirements the same across the board. But when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue later this year, it won't be a slam dunk. And it shouldn't. The line between civil rights and the "compelling public interest" necessary to intrude on those rights keeps getting moved all the time. And it's troubling. At first, the argument for testing student athletes was that schools not only have the right, but the also the obligation, to make sure the students are safe. Playing sports while on drugs isn't safe. Drug testing arguably makes sense. But is it unsafe for students to play chess while on drugs? Or sing in the school choir? What about participation in the Spanish Club -- should that be grounds for drug testing? Here the argument in favor of more testing must shift in order for the case to survive. And shift it does: Now the reason for drug testing is that even in non-athletic contests, students involved in extracurricular activities represent a school. So, they open themselves up to more scrutiny than other students. This notion of intrusively testing students in order to protect the school's image -- especially where there is no evidence of a widespread problem -- may or may not fly with the high court. If it does, then the line has moved again. That may be OK, in and of itself. If it helps catch drug use and save a student from it, it has served its purpose. But where will the line be drawn next? Couldn't the argument be made that all students represent a school? Could that fact not be used to expand testing to all students? Even limited suspicionless testing is already a broad departure from the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." The amendment then explicitly says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." In layman's terms, that means the government must have good reason to suspect a crime before it searches your personal effects. And in this instance, we're not talking about your papers, books or even your home -- we're talking about your bodily fluids. The case, which involves a Tecumseh, Okla., school district, is unsettling enough that a federal appeals court has struck down the drug-testing policy. The U.S. Supreme Court may reinstate it. If so, it won't be done lightly. No erosion of our civil rights ever should be. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens