Pubdate: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA) Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight Contact: http://www.redding.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/360 DRUG-TEST RULING LEAVES DISTRICT STUCK IN PARADOX Whether you think the Shasta Union High School District's stymied drug-testing policy is a gross violation of students' right to privacy or a sensible way to fight youth drug abuse, wouldn't it be nice if the courts would give the district and the plaintiff students a final answer? If everyone could get back to studying English and math instead of legal pleadings? No such luck. The state's 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal, based in Sacramento, last week rejected the district's appeal of an injunction that Shasta County Superior Court Judge Monica Marlow had granted last year. At the same time, the court declined to decide the case on its merits (as the district also requested), instead throwing it back to the lower court for a possible trial. Two of the three original plaintiffs have already graduated from high school. At this rate, they might have their own law degrees by the time the litigation is settled. Even so, if the district chooses to push forward with defending its policy at trial despite an openly skeptical ruling from the Court of Appeal, parents of high-schoolers might learn something valuable - whether the random drug tests actually work. The district's rationale for its decision to extend random drug tests from athletes to students in band, choir, math club and other extracurricular activities was to give students an extra reason to avoid drugs. Many researchers, however, argue that the testing will, if anything, backfire. They say random testing promotes a climate of mistrust and leads at-risk students to avoid extracurricular activities that might enrich their lives, connect them with their schools, and give them a real reason to avoid drugs. Naturally, in court the district had its own expert who argued otherwise. Who's right? The question matters for parents and district decision-makers, but also is critical under the law. As the court ruling explains, students have a strong right to privacy under the California constitution, but that right is balanced by administrators' duty to maintain a safe school (no less a right in the state Constitution). But striking the right balance depends on what works. It's one thing to haul students out of class, make them pee on demand, and potentially force them to reveal prescription medications they're taking if the testing regime actually cuts drug use among students. But if it doesn't work, what's the point of the embarrassing rigmarole? Paradoxically, the most straightforward way to learn whether the tests achieve their goal would be to let the district carry them out - and then see if student drug use, as measured in state surveys or otherwise, in fact drops. But the courts have barred that path. That leaves the district stuck in a legal pincer. If the drug-testing program worked, the 3rd Circuit ruling suggests, it would be far more likely to pass constitutional muster. But that same court won't let the high school district try it and see. The courts are vital for enforcing our rights, to be sure, but this is a heck of a way to run a school system. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D