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superseded drug testing concerns.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