Pubdate: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 Source: Oklahoman, The (OK) Copyright: 2002 The Oklahoma Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.oklahoman.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/318 Author: Steve Schmidt, and Lisa Cook Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) COURT'S DECISION PUZZLING TO THE EDITOR: The recent Supreme Court ruling permitting random drug testing on students who participate in any extracurricular activity surprised me. The arguments of the majority position seem to defy common sense. How could enforced testing not violate one's right to privacy? Certainly it's understandable in the workplace, where safety is an issue, and I can see that principle applying to some school activities. But to impose it on kids who join the choir or Future Farmers of America would actually hinder efforts to get kids involved in after-school activities, the very thing being used to help keep them off drugs. Justice Clarence Thomas' argument that our war against drugs makes the invasion of students' privacy insignificant is as ridiculous as saying that our war against terrorism warrants the random tapping of telephones. Perhaps we should apply this ruling to members of the court themselves and impose periodic random drug testing on the justices. Steve Schmidt Tulsa - ------------------------------- Unneeded Expense TO THE EDITOR: Who will foot the bill for the new drug screening option for children in after-school activities? Our school districts can't afford to employ enough teachers. A few years back the taxpayers passed House Bill 1017, which was supposed to limit the number of students in a classroom. And now school districts will just pay fines instead of hiring enough teachers to lower the number of students in each class. This means we're back to 35 children-plus in one classroom. Are schools becoming drug czars or are they there to educate our children? Lisa Cook Lexington - --- MAP posted-by: Beth