Pubdate: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 Source: Contra Costa Times (CA) Copyright: 2002 Knight Ridder Contact: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/contact_us/feedback_np2 Website: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/96 Author: Matthew Leising DISTRICT SAYS 'NO' TO RANDOM DRUG TESTS Last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing random drug testing of high school students involved in any extracurricular activity will have no effect in Oakland's public schools, said Superintendent Dennis Chaconas. "We've never even considered drug testing in Oakland under my leadership," Chaconas said. "It doesn't align with my philosophy." The case came before the high court after two Oklahoma high school students, one of whom was a member of the National Honor Society and academic team, sang in the choir and played in the school band, charged that their school district's policy of random drug testing without suspicion violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search. The court held that the school district's policy, which stemmed from a prior 1995 Supreme Court decision that allowed random drug testing of student athletes -- but not students in the chess club or choir, for example -- did not violate the Fourth Amendment for four reasons. As in any case involving Fourth Amendment questions, the decision to constitutionally search someone must rest on the "reasonableness" of the search, such as probable cause in the case of a police officer searching a suspect. The court said in its 5-4 decision that schools are allowed to test without suspicion, because they have "special needs" that stem from their commitment to keeping students from taking drugs. "Because the 'reasonableness' inquiry cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children ... a finding of individual suspicion may not be necessary," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion. The court also ruled that participants in extracurricular activities have a lessened expectation of privacy and that the means of the drug test -- collecting urine samples while counselors wait outside the bathroom stall - -- amounts to a "negligible" intrusion upon one's privacy. Lastly, the court found that the school district's interest in protecting its students from drug use was served by its policy and that the evidence presented of a drug problem in the Oklahoma district was sufficient to warrant the testing. The court, however, also said that showing "a particularized or pervasive drug problem" was not necessary to allow suspicion-free drug testing and that solely the desire to prevent "the substantial harm" of childhood drug use was strong enough to uphold the policy. Reaction to the ruling was quick and divided. "We think it's a very distressing decision," said Ann Brick, a staff attorney in the San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU's National Drug Policy Litigation Project represented the plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case. "We all want to protect our kids from drugs and prevent them from taking drugs, but this across-the-board drug-testing policy is really counterproductive," Brick said. Brick said that studies have shown that one of the best ways to keep students from taking drugs is to have them involved in extra curricular activities. Chaconas agreed, saying, "We want kids to participate in extra curricular activities, because we believe it keeps kids off drugs." Oakland police would not comment on the matter. Brick also said the policy was "a very significant invasion of privacy." She noted that students have to reveal what medications they are taking before the drug test, such as, she said, anti-depressants, AIDS medication or birth-control pills, an admission that amounts to "a tremendous invasion of privacy." But Bob Maginnis, vice president for policy at the Washington D.C.-based Family Research Council, said the invasion of privacy concerns were "really a stretch." He also noted that the kids involved in extracurricular activities are often looked up to by other students on campus. "The kids that are actually involved in multiple extracurricular activities in schools tend to be the sub-set of leaders at the school," he said. "If the example is you are to be drug-free, that sets a very positive example for the rest of the school." Howard Simon, a spokesman for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America in New York, stressed that his organization was concerned with prevention and not policy, but added, "Anything that is within the law that can act as a deterrent is a good thing." Maginnis agreed with the court that the tests were not invasive and that when children decide to participate in extracurricular activities they subject themselves to increased scrutiny. He added that the drug-testing policy was warranted because it does not involve the police, but is aimed at alerting parents. "That's the beauty here, they're going to tell the parents," he said. The ACLU's Brick countered that the National Education Association and the American Academy of Pediatricians -- two organizations with children's interests at heart -- sided against the random drug tests. "One of the problems with this decision is it's based on the assumption that students are guilty before being proved innocent," she said. Chaconas echoed this sentiment, and said he believed instituting the random drug testing would deter kids from participating in after-school activities. While there is no concrete way to know how many school districts across the country already have adopted the policy or will adopt it in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, Chaconas said he did not believe it was prevalent in California. "I don't know any of my colleagues in California that support this," he said. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth