Pubdate: Tue, 26 Mar 2002
Source: Free Press, The (NC)
Copyright: 2002 Kinston Free Press
Contact: http://www.kinston.com/Contact.cfm
Website: http://www.kinston.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1732
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

KIDS' RIGHTS AN OXYMORON, HIGH COURT SAYS

It should go without saying, but in this era of hypersensitivity, we 
probably have to say it anyway: The fact that children cannot vote, drive, 
drink, etc., doesn't mean they have no rights at all. Certainly, adults 
cannot abuse them physically or otherwise. And children are of course have 
a right to expect their parents' love and all that goes with it, including 
food, shelter, guidance, moral nurturing and so forth.

That disclaimer having been stated, we must say we found ourselves 
reassured by the overall good sense on the subject of children's rights 
that seemed to emanate from the nation's highest court last week.

The case at hand involved a sophomore choir singer at a rural Oklahoma high 
school who had objected to the mandatory urine tests that came with 
participation in extracurricular activities, whether or not any student was 
believed to be using drugs.

Sweeping aside the student's lawyers' concerns about the need for precisely 
such "individualized suspicion" - some evidence the student to be tested is 
under the influence or uses controlled substances - before a school can 
test for drugs, several justices made clear the Fourth Amendment's bar on 
unreasonable searches and seizures simply doesn't apply to those in the 
custody of the school system.

Granted, there's much overkill and just plain silliness, all too often 
politically motivated, to be found in the host of "zero-tolerance" policies 
being embraced by school boards around the country. Though there are 
understandable worries about violence and drug use among teens and even 
pre-teens, many of the responses are overwrought and unreasonable.

What the court seemed to be saying, though, is that the way to file the 
rough edges off of such overreaching policies is through parents 
interacting with their duly-elected school board members. Which is to say 
these debates aren't really constitutional fodder for the courts as much as 
they are policy matters for representative government to sort out.

When most of us entrust our minors to the daily oversight of public 
schools, we extend to those schools the authority to ensure those kids are 
safe, disciplined and of course educated. As a result, student newspapers 
can't publish anything they like; students don't get exclusive access to 
their lockers, and they may even be asked to file through metal detectors 
every morning and then provide a urine specimen just to join the football team.

Whether or not any of those policies makes sense under the circumstances in 
any given locale is for that community, not the courts, to figure out.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom