RANDOM DRUG TESTS TRAMPLE BASIC RIGHTS - AND MAKE EVERY STUDENT A SUSPECT

Youth Correspondent America's "War on Drugs" has now reached a deplorable
low--in some ways violating fundamental rights the U.S. Constitution
guarantees to all citizens.

Some American high schools are beginning to adopt mandatory, random drug
testing among students participating in extracurricular activities.

Gone are the days of probable cause and reasonable suspicion.

Now, faculty members of schools are the police--turning educational centers
into police states where children are escorted from class to "testing" sites.

As American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Steven Shapiro said on the
National Federation of State High Schools Association's Web site, this new,
hyper drug-testing policy "makes students' rights the latest casualty of
the 'War on Drugs.' "

In order to ensure school safety, the courts have tried to balance the
constitutional rights of students against the need for security within
schools. But the scale is drastically, and sadly, tilting toward mindlessly
toughening current safety and drug policies at the expense of fundamental
rights.

While the majority of high schools reportedly only search students who are
suspected of bringing drugs and weapons to school, some are beginning to
adopt tougher policies--ones that give them the power to drug-test students
regardless of whether they are suspected of an illegal act or not.

Random urine samples, absent a concrete probable cause, equates to illegal
search and seizure--prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. They also violate
another aspect of the Constitution: Instead of being presumed innocent
until proven guilty, students are considered guilty until proven innocent.
The only way to establish innocence is to surrender the sample.

One student in Oregon stated on the ACLU's Web page, "I was taught in
school that our Constitution guarantees that every American is presumed
innocent by the government until they are proven guilty. But now my school
tells me that I am presumed guilty [until] I prove my innocence. That's
just not right."

According to the Supreme Court's 1995 ruling, drug testing among high
school students is "right," and very legal.

The case pitted a seventh-grade student and his parents against an Oregon
school district. The boy's parents refused to sign the testing consent
form--and as a result, the student was denied the right to play football.

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Veronia School District 47
(Oregon) v. Wayne and Judy Acton that drug testing was indeed acceptable
for students involved in voluntary, after-school activities such as
interscholastic sports and school clubs.

The justices in favor of drug testing based their ruling on four
principles. One of those included the opinion that students involved in
extracurricular activities are participating voluntarily in programs that
have a lower expectation of privacy (some justices highlighted the fact
that athletes undress together in the locker room as a supportive argument).

Lower expectation of privacy?!?

What happened to the guarantee of "the right of the people to be secure in
their persons, house, papers, and effects," without a warrant of probable
cause?

The Supreme Court's ruling established a disturbing loophole. School
officials have been given the opportunity to redefine "probable cause" to
mean one's preference in after-school activities. Students are equated to
drug-users simply because they like to kick a soccer ball or perform in a
play--not as a result of suspected behavior or history.

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the dissenters of the
ruling, wrote a brief that is cited on the NFHS Web site.

"By the reasoning of this decision" she said, "the millions of these
students who participate in interscholastic sports, an overwhelming
majority of whom have given school officials no reason whatsoever to
suspect they use drugs at school, are open to intrusive bodily search."

Aside from being intrusive, drug testing is extremely expensive.

One of the biggest deterrents of drug testing among high school students is
the cost. Schools simply cannot support fiscal budgets that include
appropriations for drug testing.

As a student in a county (Stafford) that barely floated a budget for the
2000-2001 school year, it seems like the last thing counties need is
another financial burden.

As the NFHS Web site reports, "street drugs" testing costs at least $20 per
test. Multiply that by the standard 10 random tests every week, and the
cost approximately $6,000 per year for a single school. That's close to
$25,000 for a county with four high schools like Stafford.

That's $25,000 of taxpayer money that could be used to fund the hiring of
new teachers, raise current teacher salaries, buy new textbooks, build new
schools and essentially do what schools are supposed to: teach.

When will it stop?

Virginia schools already have policies in place concerning drug use among
students. And if those policies are violated then the student deserves to
be suspended or expelled. No question about it.

However, a student should not have to suffer suspicion and harassment by
officials simply because he or she likes to participate in sports or clubs.

"If the school district can force this on families," stated one concerned
Oregon parent on the ACLU's Web site, "what's next?"

It seems only time will tell what awaits the ever-diminishing rights of
students.