Pubdate: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 Source: Rome News-Tribune (GA) Copyright: 2002 Rome News-Tribune Contact: http://www.romenews-tribune.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1716 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) STRANGE THINKING THE NEED for public schools to keep drugs off their campuses trumps the privacy rights of students in the drama club, or so the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The justices, 5 to 4, decided that drug tests were permissible as a condition for participating in any extracurricular activities that involve interscholastic competition. That's things like band, chorus, debate teams, theater, the Future Homemakers of America and so forth. Student athletes were already subject to such tests because of an earlier court ruling. However, in this decision the justices have apparently kept intact the privacy rights of students who don't participate in anything or at least nothing involving any competitive aspects. That's actually a pretty weird decision and even weirder result. Perhaps half the student body will be liable to be tested at any time while to do the same to the other half would remain unconstitutional. IT GETS ODDER still, for two of the justices in the majority actually avoided passing judgment on the Pottawatomie County, Okla., school policy that triggered this case. That school, by the way, tested 505 students and had only three positive results (all involving athletes). Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, and Justice Stephen Breyer, in a concurring opinion, both limited their reasoning to the motive involved - schools keeping bad things from happening - and not to the actual policy. It is a policy that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent, branded "not reasonable ... capricious, even perverse" while noting the school district could not even show it had a drug problem on campus. She also made the rather obvious point that school officials were thus going after the students actually least likely to be using drugs. This is a case where the court may have stumbled by seeking to address a social condition instead of the law. If the court had said any student could be tested it would probably have won more popular support, even though there are some very troublesome legal niceties involved in that approach. The concept that just by sending a child to school a parent has granted tacit approval for that child to be tested for drugs is a tough one to defend, particularly in a society that has laws putting parents in a heap of hurt if they don't send their children to school. THAT'S WHY the majority came up with thinking that "testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use." In other words, only students who want something more from school than an education, who want the privilege of participating in something extra, open themselves up to mandatory drug testing. This slides past the element of coercion because students now would willingly opt for drug testing by signing up for band. No doubt other school districts will now imitate this Oklahoma practice. If they do, one predictable result will be that the drug problems, if any, will remain largely untouched and undetected. At the same time, as Justice Ginsberg warned, by using a quotation directly from a 1943 Supreme Court decision, there is a need for "scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the individual if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." THE PENDING PLATITUDE to which she refers is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution that bars any citizen from being subject to an unreasonable search and seizure. It is a real stretch of the legal imagination to equate the desire to play a trumpet or sing in the chorus as being a "reasonable" cause for a citizen to be seized and have their bodily fluids searched. - --- MAP posted-by: Ariel