Pubdate: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 Source: Daily Record, The (NJ) Copyright: 2002 The Daily Record Contact: http://www.dailyrecord.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/112 Authors: Laura Bruno, Matt Manochio MORRIS STUDENTS, STAFFERS OPPOSED TO DRUG TESTING While the U.S. Supreme Court mulls the constitutionality of random drug testing for high school students involved in after-school activities, a similar case has bedeviled a Hunterdon County high school since 1999. The board of education at Hunterdon Central Regional High School approved a policy in December 1999 calling for random drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities and those who have a permit to park on campus. The policy was knocked down as unconstitutional last year by a state Superior Court judge who found that a student's right to privacy superseded drug testing concerns. The case is on appeal, and the school is awaiting a decision by a three-judge state appellate panel. Though the New Jersey School Boards Association supports the policy of random drug testing for students, few school districts in the state are known to follow such policies. The school boards association is aware of 10 districts that have some form of random drug testing for students. The districts are spread across the state in six counties; Gloucester, Ocean, Camden, Hudson, Hunterdon and Passaic. No Morris County districts are known to have adopted any form of random drug testing. "It does violate students' privacy," said Jaclyn Friedlander, a 17-year-old Randolph High School junior. "If there's a suspicion and they have good reason to test, it makes sense; otherwise it's a waste of everybody's time and a violation of privacy." Choosing students to test randomly does no good, Friedlander said. Several students who don't have drug problems could be chosen and that wouldn't help anyone, she said. Districts that support random testing, such as Hunterdon Central, believe such policies are a deterrent to using drugs and can help identify students who need help. "Drug testing of students leads to counseling and intervention, not jail time," said Mike Yaple, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards Association. Yaple said that such testing can help find students with drug problems and get counseling for them before the addiction escalates. Some have argued in the Supreme Court case that students involved in after-school programs are less likely to be using drugs. "It's like punishing kids because they're participating at school," said Morristown High School Principal Richard Garibell. "The law as stipulated in New Jersey is that you test kids when you have a reasonable suspicion." Garibell said the current policy addresses the needs of all students, while choosing to randomly test only a certain population of students seems to have limited reach. "Why just test kids involved in after-school programs?" Garibell asked. "Does it mean you don't care about the other kids who aren't involved?" West Morris Central Principal Michael Reilly agreed that random drug testing is unnecessary and said that questioning a teen's integrity without any evidence of wrongdoing is self-defeating. "If you set a climate of distrust, you push the young people away," Reilly said. "It's a needless exertion of authority." In the Supreme Court case, an Oklahama school district's testing policy was challenged by a female student, Lindsay Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth College. Earls, who tested negative for drug use in a random test, said she found it humiliating to urinate in a bathroom stall with a teacher waiting outside. This week, several Supreme Court justices seemed to embrace the idea of random drug tests for students involved in after-school activities, a major step toward allowing drug testing for all students. The court's ruling in the current case, expected by summer, should answer a major question left from a 1995 ruling. The court ruled then that schools may test athletes for drugs. The question now is whether the factors that made drug testing acceptable for athletes now apply to other after-school activities, or even students at large. The reasoning used in 1995 was that students who routinely strip naked in a locker room have a lower expectation of privacy than other students. The court also said that students who used drugs while playing vigorous sports could also be a danger to themselves or others. Wider drug testing remains relatively rare among the nation's 15,500 public school districts, lower courts have reached differing conclusions about the practice. Some have grown accustomed to allowing random testing of athletes. Matt Harper, 17, a Whippany Park High School junior, said he understands why athletes are subject to different rules. But he said random testing is only necessary for athletes -- not for those involved in clubs where using drugs wouldn't affect their performance. In athletics, he said, a student using performance-enhancing drugs creates an unequal advantage for a team. Mark Heckler, president of the Morris Plains Board of Education, said he believes Americans' rights to privacy are constantly being eroded, and said the random testing of students was no exception. "I just don't like it," Heckler said. "It smacks of Big Brother." Randolph school board President Gregory Mark, who also is a law professor at Rutgers University, said he believes random testing is unconstitutional. "I think one of the most important things we can teach students is a mutual respect between students and school authorities," Mark said. "I think that is best learned only when there is reasonable suspicion. I hope the court doesn't go that way." - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens