Pubdate: Thu, 28 Mar 2002
Source: Times Leader (PA)
Copyright: 2002 The Times Leader
Contact:  http://www.leader.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/933
Author: Evelyn Brady
Note: Evelyn T. Brady is a consultant with the Victims Resource Center and 
a member of the Luzerne County Commission for Women. Her Times Leader 
column is published every other Thursday.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS IS A STAB AT THE HEART OF OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In January of 1999 Lindsay Earls was summoned from choir class and told she 
should report to the cafeteria. She was joined by other students, all of 
whom knew why they were there. They had been randomly chosen for a drug 
test. Officials escorted the students to the bathroom and ordered them to 
provide urine samples, which were tested for the presence of illegal drugs.

School officials had no evidence that Earls or any of the other students 
chosen had used drugs. The Tecumseh School District in Oklahoma doesn't 
have a documented drug problem; however, it does have one of the toughest 
school drug-testing policies in the United States. The district requires 
that high school students must undergo drug tests if they wish to take part 
in any extracurricular activity, including such havens for drug use as the 
chess club, debate team and the choir. Even if the student tests negative, 
he or she must also agree to random drug testing throughout the year.

Humiliated by the experience, Earls sued the school district with the help 
of the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal district court ruled 
against Earls, but the students filed and won an appeal in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals. The case is currently in front of the Supreme Court after the 
school district's decision to appeal the district court's decision.

Attorney Graham Boyd, who is arguing the case on behalf of Earls and her 
fellow students, believes that drug testing violates students' Fourth 
Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the 
amendment, law enforcement officials must show "probable cause" for a search.

The Supreme Court is quite familiar with the topic of student drug testing, 
having ruled in 1995 that middle school and high school athletes can be 
required to submit, without suspicion, to drug tests as a condition of 
athletic participation, despite the fact that there is little evidence that 
student athletes are more prone to drug use than their non-athletic peers.

That 1995 ruling allowed an exception to the rule that authorities must 
have a specific reason to suspect someone of unlawful activity before 
subjecting them to a search. Athletes, the Supreme Court decided, uniquely 
waive their privacy expectations by agreeing to other invasions of privacy 
such as shared dressing rooms and physical exams.

Other districts have been quick to jump on the mandatory drug-testing 
bandwagon, revealing a disturbing trend toward increased control and 
conformity as a matter of policy in schools. More and more students are 
being forced to surrender body fluids as a matter of course. In Lockney, 
Texas, all junior and senior high school students were required to take a 
mandatory drug test. Refusal by a parent or student drew the same 
punishment as failure to pass the test, an in-school suspension for first 
offenders. The policy has since been modified to put only extracurricular 
activities at issue as a way to pass legal review.

In Easton, Md., 18 students were required to provide urine specimens based 
on rumors that they had attended a party where drugs were used, and a high 
school in Alabama regularly tests its student athletes to determine if they 
are smoking cigarettes.

We would never condone government officials going through our 
neighborhoods, knocking on our doors and demanding urine samples in order 
to test for drugs, but this indiscriminate approach is sanctioned in our 
schools, where students are minors and schools have sufficient latitude in 
limiting their freedom "for their own benefit."

School officials reason that they have a responsibility for the safety of 
the students under their watch and contend that the primary reason for drug 
testing is to eliminate the use of drugs and create a safer school 
environment. To many parents who feel helpless to prevent their children 
from using drugs, the drug test is a necessary tool to provide students 
with a reason to resist peer pressure to drink or do drugs. The debate over 
constitutional rights seems secondary to them.

The presumption of guilt created by this kind of policy flies in the face 
of the "Pledge of Allegiance" many students recite each morning. Their 
sense of liberty and what that means is offended each time they are asked 
to provide a urine sample without any cause to suspect that they are using 
drugs. Random drug testing presumes all students are criminals guilty of 
drug use until they can prove their innocence by producing a clear urine 
sample.

Whatever small gain drug testing might offer in the war against drugs, it 
is not worth the loss of privacy, freedom and dignity. What a bleak future 
it will be for our students if they come to associate their education with 
a government that suspects them, without reason, and invades their privacy 
without cause.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager