Pubdate: Wed, 29 May 2002 Source: Newsday (NY) Copyright: 2002 Newsday Inc. Contact: http://www.newsday.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/308 Author: Marilee Miller Note: Marilee Miller reported this while working for the Medill News Service in Washington. Bill Zimmerman, Editor SCHOOL ISSUES: Challenging Drug Testing Washington - Lindsay Earls was a sophomore in high school in Tecumseh, Okla., when the school board decided that all students - athletes and nonathletes alike - who wanted to participate in extracurricular school activities had to take a drug test. Now, four years later, after Earls and other students sued the school board for violating their constitutional right to privacy, the Supreme Court must decide whether the policy of testing students who it has no reason to believe are taking drugs is legal. Under the policy, all students choosing to participate in extracurricular activities are required to take a urinalysis to test for drugs and agree to periodic random testing. The thinking on the tough antidrug stand is that the tests would give students an incentive to say no to drugs. The court had said it is OK for schools to test athletes involved in rigorous activity for their own protection. A school may also test those students it suspects might be using drugs, but it has never addressed testing the entire student body. The last court to hear the case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled against the policy, saying drug tests for nonathletes are unreasonable. When the Supreme Court heard the case in March, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the policy punished a student population largely untouched by drug use. The policy, she said, was structured in a way "to do very little good." Justice David Souter agreed and said the goal of drug testing should be to stop use, not participation in extracurricular activities, which can keep teens away from drugs. But Justice Antonin Scalia said he wondered whether the fact that teenage drug use is a huge problem nationwide might justify the school's testing of the nonathletes. According to a survey conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1999, more than 21 percent of senior boys and 18 percent of senior girls reported using drugs other than marijuana, and 50 percent of high school seniors admitted to trying marijuana. Before instituting the policy, the Tecumseh high school had boasted an impressive record of stopping drug use. Between 1989 and 1997, the school reported few drug incidents and said drug use was decreasing, according to court documents. In 1998, after one mother reported marijuana use on the football team, parents demanded the school board do more to prevent student drug use. At first, the board considered drug testing the athletes, which the constitution permits because there was evidence of drug use in that group. The board president, however, extended testing to other students, saying it wouldn't be fair to single out the athletes. More than 500 students at the school, who are involved in extracurricular activities, were tested for drug use the year the plan took effect, according to court documents. In the first year, three tested positive for drug use. The second year, only one tested positive. Those students all were involved in athletics, documents indicate. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said he thought the best way to understand a drug problem at a school is for parents to talk with their children about the dangers of drug use. Earls, now a Dartmouth student, said she was humiliated the first time she was tested for drugs, according to court documents. School officials made her urinate in a plastic vial while three faculty members listened outside the stall for "the normal sounds of urination," court documents state. When Earls was finished, one of the faculty members, whom she saw on a regular basis, inspected her sample to make sure it was the right temperature and color. Tests indicated Earls did not use drugs. Opponents told the court that if Earls had refused to take the drug tests, she would be embarrassed and humiliated by having to give a urine sample, isolated from other students and excluded from extracurricular activities, which would have hurt her chances at getting into a competitive college. They argue that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment bans unreasonable searches and seizures. Attorneys for the Justice Department told the court that the invasion of privacy caused by drug testing is reasonable considering the government's responsibility of protecting children in its schools. An opinion is expected by summer. [Remainder of article unrelated to drug policy] - --- MAP posted-by: Alex