Pubdate: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 Source: Clarion-Ledger, The (MS) COL0402/504170332/1161/OPINION Copyright: 2005 The Clarion-Ledger Contact: http://www.clarionledger.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/805 Author: Ronnie Agnew Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States) DRUG TESTING TARGETS A FEW; ISSUE BROADER I don't often find myself in agreement with the ACLU, but I'm not sold on the idea of random drug testing that seems to be gaining favor in more Mississippi schools. Last week, both Pearl and Rankin County school districts announced various forms of random testing. Officials in Rankin say their policy would be among the strictest in the state, giving them the authority to search kids if there is the suspicion of drugs. Mostly, the policies at both school districts -- similar to ones in Tupelo, Madison, Petal and other places -- call for random testing of students involved in extracurricular activities which, some studies suggest, is the group least likely to use drugs. That means students participating in activities ranging from student council to the football team could be yanked out of class at any moment and asked to provide urine in a cup. I find that to be a very simplistic and extremely invasive way of catching a few while other potential offenders walk the hallways worry-free. Whose responsibility is it? I also find it distressing that schools have taken on this social, loophole-filled role when I've heard more than a few in the business scream about all the parenting duties being unwillingly thrust upon them. My position is not to be mistaken with my view on drugs. I abhor the drug culture and how it has been passed down the generations, made to look cool on TV and profitable, too. It surpasses my ability to understand why any kid would get hooked on drugs when unequivocal failure is the only result. I've seen personally what drugs have done to people and whole communities. I've seen rich people lose everything. I've seen smart kids with the world before them fall into mental illness, aided by the false euphoria of being with the in-crowd. But I also believe it is the parents' or guardians' responsibility to know their kids and any change in behavior that would raise suspicion. It is not a task that belongs in the school unless the parent role is absolutely broken. The home is where it should rest. That is not to suggest that school officials should not be watchful of kids while they are under their care. If they find a kid using or selling drugs on school grounds, they have every reason to act decisively. Erratic student behavior certainly shouldn't be ignored because I'm not naive enough to believe all parents want the job. Look for probable cause It's my view that part of these knee-jerk and reactionary drug policies stem from our frustration and inability to rid society of this problem. We simply don't know what to do so we create rules targeting some students, because, quite frankly, the courts have set stringent parameters only allowing limited testing. Under the extracurricular test, some kids may get caught, which is good. But what about the ones not required to provide samples while the teacher waits outside? The ACLU would argue that random testing is simply an invasion of privacy. I would argue, however, that unless the schools make the fiscally unreasonable step of testing entire student bodies over prolonged periods of time, it is pointless to only test a few. I want our schools safe and I want to see drugs completely wiped away from them. If I were persuaded that this would solve the problem, I would be the first to champion it. Probable cause searches are more in line with my view. The plans debated by Pearl and Rankin are no more than feel-good policies that might help ever-so-slightly when I'm in favor of bigger steps. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom