Pubdate: Wed, 10 Apr 2002
Source: Concord Monitor (NH)
Copyright: 2002 Monitor Publishing Company
Contact:  http://www.cmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/767
Author: Sonia Scherr
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

A WALKING, TALKING CIVICS LESSON

Teen's Case Before U.S. Supreme Court

Dartmouth College

HANOVER - Dartmouth College student Lindsay Earls sat in the wood- paneled 
Tower Room of Baker Library last week, studying judicial review for a 
course titled "Civil Liberties and Individual Rights in the United States."

For Earls, who's thinking about a career in constitutional law, the 
course's topic resonates beyond the realm of academics: She is the 19- 
year-old freshman whose U.S. Supreme Court case will decide whether public 
schools nationwide can conduct random drug testing of students involved in 
a wide array of extracurricular activities.

As a member of the high school choir in Tecumseh, Okla., Earls was 
compelled to take a urine test in 1999 after her school district instituted 
random drug testing for students participating in activities that involved 
interscholastic competition. Earls felt the test was unjustified - since no 
one suspected her of drug use - and an invasion of her privacy.

Her family consulted ACLU lawyer Graham Boyd, who advised them that the 
only way to change the policy was to mount a legal challenge. Last month, 
Earls spent part of spring break listening to her case being argued before 
the Supreme Court. The court agrees to review approximately 100 cases a 
year - or one out of every 70 petitions that it receives.

Earls, who said she never imagined her case would reach the nation's 
highest court, said the experience was "incredible."

Earls returned to campus two weeks ago after her case had been featured on 
the front page of The New York Times and on CBS's morning show. "It's been 
a thrilling response I've gotten here," she said. Students she didn't know 
have approached her to ask, "Are you Lindsay? Are you the girl with the 
Supreme Court case?"

"When I say 'yeah,' they're like, 'wow, that's so cool.' "

Her roommate, Carolyn Parma, is one of the students who has supported 
Earls's efforts. "I didn't see the necessity for drug testing in those kind 
of (non-athletic) activities," said Parma, 19, "so when Lindsay told me her 
rights felt violated, I kind of agreed."

Her case has also come up in some Dartmouth College government courses. 
(Ironically, it was discussed in her American politics course last fall on 
a day when she had to miss class to meet with her lawyer.)

But the recent outpouring of interest from the Dartmouth community doesn't 
reflect the challenges Earls faced during the three years that her case 
moved through the court system. In fact, Earls said, she wasn't sure she 
wanted to continue after the initial ruling against her, in U.S. District 
Court. A fourth-generation graduate of Tecumseh High School, Earls was 
uncomfortable opposing the district in which she'd been a student nearly 
all her life.

After speaking to her parents and grandmother, however, "I knew that I 
would have them supporting me no matter what, so at that point I didn't 
feel like I would have anything to lose," said Earls. "I decided that it 
was important enough that someone needed to stick with it."

Her high school friends supported her decision, but a lot of people in the 
community did not. Many were pleased with the school board's anti- drug 
policy and expressed outrage at the Earlses' move to challenge it. There 
were hurtful letters in the local paper and nasty calls to radio shows. 
There were also rumors suggesting that Lindsay Earls used drugs, even 
though she passed three drug tests. (Earls said her parent forbade her to 
listen to talk radio because of the level of meanness.)

"They really didn't see the whole invasion of privacy side," Earls said of 
the people who spoke against her.

Earls's mother, Lori, said there were people who privately supported the 
family's decision, although they were far less vocal than those who opposed 
it. "We're really proud of her for pursuing it," said Lori Earls, a medical 
technologist. "It's not easy for someone her age to stand up and voice 
their opinion about something they think is wrong, and she has done a very 
good job of that."

Hot topic at home

Mike McCormick, executive editor of the Shawnee News-Star, a daily 
newspaper that covers Tecumseh, said the town of 6,000 residents tends to 
lean toward the conservative side. He said he believes that people have had 
strong feelings on both sides of the issue, with community sentiment tilted 
slightly in favor of the school board's position. "I do not think this is 
something at this point in time that has been that divisive (in Tecumseh)," 
he said.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the 10th Circuit ruled in Earls's favor last year. Earls called the 
high court's announcement in November "a pleasant surprise," although her 
reaction was tempered by the possibility that the favorable ruling could be 
overturned. Nonetheless, she said, "I felt this is an issue that needs to 
be decided for the entire nation, not just the 10th Circuit."

In a 1995 decision, the Supreme Court approved drug testing for students on 
athletic teams, citing the school's interest in combating a known drug 
problem in which some athletes were involved. Earls argued that random 
testing should not be extended to students who participate in other 
extracurricular activities, in part because they do not face the special 
risks that athletes do by using drugs.

Asked how she felt about Justice Anthony Kennedy's remark implying she was 
a "druggie," Earls said, "I couldn't believe he said that. I just started 
laughing in the audience. It was pretty frustrating that I couldn't just 
stand up and say, 'Look at me: Do I look like a druggie?' "

Earls said she tries not to think about the ruling that the Supreme Court 
is expected to announce this summer. But news accounts in The New York 
Times and The Washington Post have said the court appears likely to decide 
in an extremely close vote that broad drug testing is constitutional.

If the court rules against her, "it will be upsetting but it won't make me 
feel any differently about it," Earls said. "I feel like someone needs to 
stand up for students' rights, and even if I lose I'll know that I did try. 
It's more like a thing within myself that I needed to do."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom