Pubdate: Fri, 28 Jun 2002
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Page: A1
Copyright: 2002 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact:  http://www.boston.com/globe/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52
Author: Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

JUSTICES CLEAR WAY FOR DRUG TESTS FOR STUDENTS IN HOST OF ACTIVITIES

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave public school officials much wider 
authority yesterday to test students for drugs, setting the stage for 
districts to move toward screening everyone who attends school.

The 5-4 ruling permits districts to require random tests of any student who 
takes part in extracurricular activitities such as band, chorus, or 
academic competition. Previously, the court had upheld mandatory testing of 
student athletes.

"Given the nationwide epidemic of drug use, it was entirely reasonable for 
the school district to enact this particular testing program," Justice 
Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision significantly narrows the obligation for school officials to 
justify urine sampling among students who are not suspected individually of 
drug use. Thomas indicated that districts would no longer be required to 
offer proof that the specific activity in which students took part provided 
a reason to screen them.

When it upheld testing of athletes in 1995, the court appeared to have done 
so in part because sports involve physical risks and a reduced level of 
personal privacy in the locker room. Those factors, the justice said, were 
"not essential" to the constitutional analysis.

What was most important in weighing the constitutionality of student drug 
testing, Thomas said, is that school officials are entrusted with the care 
and tutoring of children during their time at school. Enlarging on a 
rationale that would justify testing any student, the main opinion said 
that "a student's privacy interest is limited in a public school 
environment where the state is responsible for maintaining discipline, 
health, and safety."

"The nationwide drug epidemic makes the war against drugs a pressing 
concern in every school," Thomas said.

Across the nation, schools with drug-testing programs mainly began them for 
athletes. But a number expanded to include students taking part in 
extracurricular activities - as in the case decided yesterday.

The ruling went against Lindsay Earls, a former honor student who competed 
on an academic quiz team and participated in choir and band at Tecumseh, 
Okla., High School, in a town of around 6,000 southeast of Oklahoma City. 
Earls, who now attends Dartmouth College, tested negative but sued over 
what she called a humiliating and accusatory policy. She told the 
Associated Press that yesterday was "a sad day for students in America."

In other districts, officials have given drug tests to any student who 
brings a car to school. A school district in Texas experimented with a 
program that tested every student, but abandoned it after it was challenged 
in court.

It now seems likely that a program to test all students will emerge and 
provide the basis for a new appeal to determine the scope of yesterday's 
ruling. When the court heard the Oklahoma case in March, a Justice 
Department lawyer said that it would be constitutional to give a drug test 
to every student in a public school - an issue that the high court has not 
addressed.

The fate of such a program is uncertain, because the court was so closely 
divided on the issue. Thomas's main opinion had the support of Chief 
Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin 
Scalia, and Stephen G. Breyer, who also wrote a separate opinion listing 
some reasons why he thought the program at the Oklahoma school was valid.

Among other reasons, Breyer noted that the program "avoids subjecting the 
entire school to testing," a factor that he appeared to regard as 
significant. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in the key dissenting opinion, 
argued that the constitutional issues were very different when testing of 
students in extracurricular activities was at issue, compared with testing 
athletes. She cited data showing that students who take part in 
extracurricular activities "are significantly less likely to develop 
substance abuse problems than are their less-involved peers."

When the court upheld drug testing of student athletes, Ginsburg said, it 
involved students with reduced privacy interests, with a special 
susceptibility to drug-related injury, and with proof in that case that 
individual athletes were heavily involved in drug use.

The decision upholding that program, she argued, provided no basis for 
upholding "a program so sweeping" as the one in Oklahoma for students with 
none of those problems.

Also dissenting were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, and 
John Paul Stevens.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth