Pubdate: Fri, 12 Jul 2002
Source: Bucks County Courier Times (PA)
Copyright: 2002 Calkins Newspapers. Inc.
Contact: http://www.phillyburbs.com/feedback/content_cti.shtml
Website: http://www.phillyburbs.com/couriertimes/index.shtml
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1026
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

BECAUSE WE CARE: STUDENT DRUG TESTING

Our view: The Supreme Court ruling allowing even student chess players to 
be tested for drugs is a welcome opportunity to help kids avoid the 
life-threatening hazards posed by drugs.

Among adults' more challenging but critical responsibilities is finding 
ways to keep kids from screwing up their lives. To that end, parents 
theoretically violate all kinds of civil rights. Been doing it for 
generations, as parents rightly invoke - "For their own good."

And so we must.

It is with that obligation in mind that we find the Supreme Court's recent 
drug-testing decision much less troubling than the sky-is- falling civil 
libertarian bunch. The 5-4 ruling declared constitutional a Tecumseh, Okla. 
high school policy that requires students involved in competitive 
extra-curricular activities - from chess players to cheer leaders - to 
submit to drug tests. Previously, only student athletes could be compelled 
to take the tests.

By allowing the broadest latitude yet to test kids whom authorities have no 
particular reason to suspect of wrongdoing, the court affirmed that 
schools' interest in ridding their campuses of drugs outweighs students' 
right to privacy.

We have no argument with that. Neither do several of the students and 
coaches we talked to.

"A lot of things are invasions of privacy," said Pennsbury softball player 
Meghan Sinback. "This also is an invasion of privacy, but it's a good one."

She's right.

So is her coach.

"If we can nip some problems in the bud, then it's worth any invasion of 
privacy," said Frank McSherry. "It's an effort to help them."

Scholastic drug testing programs nationwide have indeed helped, a fact 
noted by the Supreme Court justices in explaining their decision. In nearby 
Flemington, N.J., for example, drug use among high school seniors at 
Hunterdon Central High dropped 52 percent in the two years since athletes 
have been tested for drugs. That, according to a student survey.

Such results should ease the civic concerns of parents overmatched by all 
sorts of wicked influences, from the morally challenged entertainment 
industry to age-old peer pressure. And for those in need of a legal 
lynchpin to clear their conscience, there is this reasoned argument: 
Students who engage in competitive extra-curricular activities voluntarily 
represent the school and therefore have a lower expectation of privacy than 
students at large.

But from a strictly common sense perspective, parents should have no qualms 
with the decision because - if they're doing their job - children have not 
been granted broad rights to privacy in the home. Indeed, closets, drawers, 
backpacks should not be off limits to parents. From our perspective, 
parental responsibility trumps kids' rights every time - for their own good.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth