STUDENT DRUG TESTS WORTHY OF DEBATE

Required tests for use of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other
illegal drugs for certain groups of public school students almost
became policy in Manatee County without so much as a public discussion.

Whether that policy would be a good idea or not is a worthy debate.
But what's amazing is that the debate was almost skipped and the
policy installed while all but under the radar.

Even some School Board members had only a vague notion of it, and
knew only that a grant had been explored. But the grant had been won
and a urine-on-demand policy was virtually set to be sprung on
students this fall.

Jane Pfeilsticker learned of it from the Herald-Tribune.

She's a School Board member.

After a reporter told her about the plan to randomly choose as many
as 1,000 varsity athletes and cheerleaders annually for surprise
urine tests -- which have nothing to do with steroids or athletics,
by the way -- she said she'd make sure that becomes a topic of board
discussion first.

Good for her, and others on the board who had the same reaction.

But then there was member Barbara Harvey's reaction. She told a
reporter that she knew few details of the plan, but said she couldn't
see how parents could object to drug tests on their kids.

That's ignorance or an act to be dismissive of those who disagree.
Lots and lots of parents have objected in lots of communities where
similar drug-test programs have been proposed. There have been
lawsuits over it. Many call it a government violation of privacy rights.

The courts have generally ruled that suspicionless testing is legal
if required only for students involved in non-required, after-school
activities. And many parents say the value outweighs the objections.

Random testing helps students resist peer pressure by providing a
good excuse to say no to drugs, they say.

Some communities say no to such programs, and some say yes. But I've
never heard of one where there wasn't a spirited public discussion first.

And the Manatee plan seems less fair than some, because it is aimed
only at varsity athletes. Students in other extracurricular programs
are inexplicably exempt.

Does the school system not care so much if members of the band and
chorus use cocaine? Are jocks now more suspect than musicians, or do
school officials just care more about catching them?

Whatever the thinking, I'm glad school officials now at least have to
do some, and explain it. Oh, and maybe even listen to parents who
might have an opinion.