Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Blade, The (OH)
Copyright: 2002 The Blade
Contact:  http://www.toledoblade.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/48
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

TROUBLESOME SCHOOL DRUG CASE

In its final flurry of decisions for its 2001 2002 term, the U.S. Supreme 
Court issued a 5-4 ruling that could have adverse consequences for children 
in America's public schools.

Not the experimental voucher program in Cleveland, but the court's 
conclusion that schools may order students involved in extracurricular 
activities to submit to drug tests whether or not there is a drug problem 
at the school.

Lindsay Earls, now a student at Dartmouth College and a self-described 
"goodie two-shoes," objected to a requirement that she undergo a drug test 
as a condition of belonging to the National Honor Society and the school 
choir at her Oklahoma high school. Although she tested negative, she 
challenged the blanket testing policy as a violation of her rights under 
the Fourth Amendment to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

In brushing that claim aside, Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority 
opinion made two principal arguments: schools have a right to promote the 
health of their students, and high school students have a minimal 
expectation of privacy, since they are subject to physical examinations and 
vaccinations.

The latter argument does away with a distinction emphasized by Justice 
Antonin Scalia in a similar case seven years ago upholding drug tests for 
school athletes. In that case, Justice Scalia pointed out that athletes are 
in and out of locker rooms, and in and out of their clothes, on a regular 
basis. "School sports," he added, "are not for the bashful."

Neither, apparently, are choir and the debate team. But both justices 
misconstrue the privacy issue at stake here. It's not about locker-room 
nudity or taking off one's clothes for a doctor's exam. Testing for illegal 
drugs without reasonable cause is a psychological violation as much as a 
physical one. Schools shouldn't engage in such testing casually, or because 
an administrator wants to score public-relations points for having a "zero 
tolerance" policy.

Justice Thomas also emphasized that the Fourth Amendment did not apply 
because school officials in Oklahoma did not turn over the results of drug 
tests to the police.

But that suggests that as long as the cops aren't called in, public-school 
officials can be as intrusive and arbitrary as they please, to the point of 
conducting random strip searches for drugs or weapons simply to make a 
point. Fortunately, this decision cannot and does not absolve school 
officials of using their own discretion. We can imagine situations in which 
a pervasive drug problem might justify random searches of students, and not 
just football strays, debaters, or members of the choir.

But before making use of the power the the court has given them, 
administrators should ask themselves: Is this really necessary?
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth