SCHOOL CHIEF DEFENDS DRUG TESTS

Panhandle District Considers Appeal After Policy Ruled Illegal

AMARILLO ­ Four years ago, Mike Vinyard believed random student drug tests
would act as a deterrent against illicit drug use and would offer
youngsters a weapon against peer pressure.

Now the Tulia school superintendent says he believes he can prove his
contention with statistics that show the number of positive drug tests has
dropped since the school's program of random testing of students involved
in extracurricular activities began in January 1997.

But last week, a United States district court judge in Amarillo concluded
that the Panhandle school district's testing policy was unconstitutional.

Mr. Vinyard said Tulia's board of trustees is scheduled to meet Tuesday to
discuss an appeal of Judge Mary Lou Robinson's ruling.

"We are disappointed, and we don't agree with her decision or her
reasoning," Mr. Vinyard said. "It's her opinion that ... you need a
drug-fueled student rebellion going on in order to justify testing."

Tulia school officials believe any illicit student drug use is too much and
warrants the random testing policy, Mr. Vinyard said.

Judge Robinson's ruling affects Tulia students in grades seven through 12.

Gary Gardner, the father of the former Tulia High School student who
initially filed suit against the district in 1997, applauded the court's
decision. Gary Gardner was the only school board member who voted against
adoption of the policy.

"We knew we were going to win," Mr. Gardner said. "And I think Judge
Robinson will be hard to overrule [on appeal]."

Tulia enacted its testing policy a few months after learning of a court
decision in Vernonia, Ore., that allowed for testing student athletes for
drugs in a situation where the school was in crisis, according to court
records.

But, Judge Robinson found few similarities between situations at the Tulia
and the Oregon schools.

Tulia officials had argued the extent of a drug problem was immaterial ­
"that the school's responsibility as guardian and tutor, the students'
diminished expectation of privacy, and an important governmental interest
in deterring drug use are sufficient to make random suspicionless drug
testing by urinalysis a reasonable search," according to court records.

Hollister Gardner, then a Tulia High School student, first filed a lawsuit
against the school, claiming his constitutional protection against illegal
search and seizure had been violated. His cousins Molly and Colby Gardner
later joined in the suit.

Hollister Gardner, now a senior at Angelo State University, acted as his
own attorney in the case.

"We've won the court case in the constitutional sense," Mr. Gardner, now
21, told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. "They're not going to be able to
drug test anymore."

Mr. Vinyard said Monday that he had received numerous telephone calls from
school officials across the state interested in the status of the Tulia
case and the success of the testing policy.

He said his school's policy had helped curb illicit drug use among
students. He said 10 of 385 students selected at random ­ 2.6 percent ­
tested positive for an illicit drug during the 1997-98 school year, the
first full year of the program.

In 1998-99, that percentage decreased to 1.5 (14 of 954), he said. This
school year, only two of 258 random tests have produced positive results
(0.8 percent), he said.

But critics argue that those numbers are too small to warrant suspicionless
searches.

"The drug-war mentality has taught us we have to give up our freedom for
supposed safety and protection from drugs and crime," said Harvey Madison,
a member of the board of directors for the Lubbock branch of the American
Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Madison said he doubted that the Tulia ruling would have any impact on
an ACLU case pending before a Lubbock court involving drug testing at the
Lockney school district. Lockney schools currently require students in
seventh through 12th grades to submit to drug testing and the removal from
extracurricular activities of those who refuse to be tested.

"Where it will matter is in the 5th Circuit [appeals court in New
Orleans]," Mr. Madison said. "If the 5th Circuit affirms on Fourth
Amendment grounds, that would be a real help for us" in the Lockney case.

David Stevens is a free-lance writer based in Amarillo.