Pubdate: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
Source: Centre Daily Times (PA)
Copyright: 2002 Nittany Printing and Publishing Co., Inc
Contact:  http://www.centredaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/74
Author: Lucia Herndon
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

WANT TO SING AT SCHOOL? LET'S TEST YOUR URINE FIRST

OK, so the Supreme Court of the United States is going to decide whether 
potential sopranos in the high schools have to not only hit that F-sharp 
but also pass a urine test for drug use.

Yikes! Even in the most restrictive, authoritarian households, drug testing 
comes only after parents suspect their kid is using. If ever there were a 
case of yelling before you're hit, this is it.

The case involves the Tecumseh, Okla., school district, which in 1998 
adopted a student activities drug-testing policy that required any student 
who wanted to participate in an extracurricular activity at the high school 
to submit to a drug test. Lindsay Earls, who wanted to join the marching 
band and the chorus, filed a complaint claiming the policy violated her 
Fourth Amendment right to be free from warrantless searches. A U.S. 
district court for Oklahoma agreed with the school district; a U.S. circuit 
court of appeals agreed with the student, setting the Supreme Court action.

The odd thing is that lawyers for the school district filed documents that 
said the district didn't have a drug problem. The school's drug testing 
turned up only three cases out of 505 tests.

Now I may be wrong, but I thought that students who participated in 
extracurricular activities were less likely to do a lot of things: smoke, 
drink, have sex, get involved in gang violence, and, yes, use drugs. 
Testing most of these kids is not a deterrent to drug use - more than 
likely, they're not using drugs. So why assume that kids are guilty? Why 
presume drug use? Yes, good kids do stupid things. But to presume that all 
kids do stupid things is stupid.

I think it's funny that the Tecumseh school board wants to go after the 
kids who are doing the right thing, the things parents would want their 
children to participate in. They're going after the ones who want to have 
fun, learn something, be active, and add to the quality of school life.

As far as I can tell, they are not testing the kids they suspect of smoking 
pot behind the school. Maybe it's a sterotype, but the kids trying out for 
Latin club are not prone to drug use. Instead, all you chess-club wannabes, 
grab a cup and drop your drawers!

If you're going to test the cheerleading squad, the audio-visual club, the 
Future Homemakers of America, and the yearbook staff, why not go after the 
known potheads, too? In essence, why not test every high school student?

Can't you see it? Kids lined up in front of the school bathrooms, paper 
cups in hand?

As ludicrous as it sounds, we may be heading that way if the Supreme Court 
sides with the Tecumseh school board. The court seems divided in its 
thinking: Justice Scalia seems to think testing everyone and his cousin is 
in order to fight a national high school drug problem (again, even though 
Tecumseh school officials concede that they don't have a drug problem), 
while Justices O'Connor and Souter seem to think the scope of the policy is 
too broad.

If the court backs the school district, the presumption of guilt will 
outweigh personal freedoms in people not old enough to vote.

But don't question us, kids. We adults know best.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth