Pubdate: Wed, 10 Jul 2002
Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA)
Copyright: 2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Contact:  http://www.seattle-pi.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/408

DON'T EXPAND DRUG TESTS IN SCHOOLS

Essentially cornered by its decision seven years ago that public school 
athletes could be subjected to random, suspicionless urine tests for drugs, 
the U.S. Supreme Court has used a Tecumseh, Okla., case to expand the list 
of student drug-testing targets to those involved in any extracurricular 
activity.

Depending on one's point of view on drug abuse and the efficacy of random 
drug testing in deterring it, the court has either moved in the wrong 
direction or not far enough in the right direction.

For those who disagreed -- as we did -- with the high court's earlier 
erosion of the privacy rights of student athletes, there was nothing to 
like in the June 27 decision to also allow decreased privacy rights for 
those in the debate team, the choir, marching band, Future Farmers of 
America, the National Honor Society and other groups.

For those who support battling the drug scourge with the assumption that 
public school students should be considered guilty of using illicit drugs 
until they prove their innocence, the obvious question is why stop short of 
subjecting all students to random drug testing.

At least in the 1995 case, involving testing of student athletes in the 
Vernonia, Ore., school district, school officials had some rationale for 
singling out those who participated in sports. Vernonia's athletes (some of 
them at least) were described as "leaders" of an aggressive local "drug 
culture" that had reached "epidemic proportions." The athletes were further 
singled out because they were perceived as role models for other students. 
There was no such compelling evidence provided about the non-athletes in 
Tecumseh.

But the 5-4 majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, seemed to 
dismiss the specific need for action it emphasized in the Vernonia case and 
indicated it was enough that the Tecumseh policy was "a reasonable means of 
furthering the school district's important interest in preventing and 
deterring drug use among its schoolchildren ..."

The court did make a defensible distinction between searches conducted to 
determine eligibility for extracurricular activities and those conducted to 
determine grounds for criminal prosecution, in which case Fourth Amendment 
protections against unreasonable searches are clearly essential.

Under the Tecumseh district's policy, drug test results are not turned over 
to law enforcement, do not result in any discipline and have no academic 
consequences. The only direct consequence of failing or refusing to take a 
drug test is denial or suspension of rights to participate in those 
school-sanctioned extracurricular activities.

Other than having the convenient carrot/stick of such participation as a 
deterrent to drug use, what rationale is there to single out these students?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her sharp dissent, dismissed the suggestion 
that, like athletes, participants in these drug-screened activities share 
"the risk of injury a drug-using student athlete cast on himself and those 
engaged with him on the playing field" that was used as rationale for 
Vernonia's testing of athletes.

Ginsburg complained, "The great majority of students the school district 
seeks to test in truth are engaged in activities that are not safety 
sensitive to an unusual degree."

Further, Ginsburg correctly argued, the school district is targeting the 
wrong group of students. "Nationwide, students who participate in 
extracurricular activities are significantly less likely to develop 
substance abuse problems than are their less-involved peers," she wrote. 
Ginsburg cited a study showing that 10th-graders who don't participate in 
such activities are 49 percent more likely to have used drugs than those 
who do participate. The result, Ginsburg wrote, is that the Tecumseh policy 
"invades the privacy of students who need deterrence least and risks 
steering students at greater risk for substance abuse away from 
extracurricular involvement that potentially may palliate drug problems."

Seattle Public Schools does not impose random drug testing on student 
athletes or anyone else. But with this latest high court ruling confirming 
the constitutionality of such testing, pressure may arise to impose it 
here. That pressure should be resisted.

As serious as drug use may be among a certain percentage of public school 
students, random drug testing, especially when limited to specific groups 
with no rational criteria for doing so, is an unproven deterrent and an 
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the majority of public school 
students who don't abuse drugs.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth