Pubdate: Tue, 05 May 2009
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2009 Record Searchlight
Contact:  http://www.redding.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/360
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

PARENTAL CHOICE COULD DEFUSE DRUG-TEST BATTLE

In California, parents have the right to keep their children out of
sex education and "family life" classes that contradict their values.

Parents have the right to skip the normally required vaccinations when
their children start kindergarten.

So why shouldn't parents have the choice to not subject their children
to the drug testing that the Shasta Union High School District
recently expanded?

This school year, the district began randomly testing students who
participate in all competitive extracurricular activities - such as
choir, band and even Science Bowl - in addition to the
student-athletes who have long faced random drug screening.

The district's admirable goal is to give students one more reason to
say no to drugs - but instead, several families have said no to drug
testing and sued the district with the help of the American Civil
Liberties Union. They had their first day in court Monday, as Judge
Monica Marlow considered a request for a temporary injunction blocking
the policy's enforcement.

The issue isn't an abstract constitutional debate. One of the
students, a senior who will graduate later this spring, would compete
in a statewide flute competition Saturday but has refused a drug test
as her family fights the policy. Given the hard work involved in
reaching that level of musical contest, it's difficult to avoid the
impression that the district's policy, however well-intentioned, is
punishing the wrong kids.

And however Judge Marlow rules on the injunction, that is just the
start of legal proceedings that could drag on for years. Today's high
school students could be in law school by the time the case reaches a
final ruling if the district and the ACLU dig in for a fight.

Why bother? If some parents so strongly object to the school's testing
their kids for drugs and alcohol, let them - the parents, not the
students - simply opt out. It's likely that only a handful of parents
would do so, leaving the school's program largely intact and effective.

And this isn't a free pass to drink beer or smoke marijuana. If school
officials have a reasonable suspicion or evidence of such illegal
activity, they can handle it just as they do now. A parental opt-out
would apply only to the random, suspicionless testing. And, try as the
district did to craft a legal policy, the fact is the black of privacy
rights and the white of running a drug-free school muddle into a
constitutional gray zone.

No, schools can't waive their rules every time a few cranky parents
complain, but a random drug test is an invasive step. The district
should recognize parents' valid qualms.

Shasta Union's board and administrators are just trying keep their
campuses safe, but a little flexibility and deference to parents'
rights could let the schools stop litigating and get back to teaching.

Our view: The state allows parents to opt out of sex education and
vaccinations. Why not treat random drug tests the same way? 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D