LET'S BATTLE TEEN DRUG USE, BUT APPROACH RANDOM TESTING CAUTIOUSLY

Earlier this month, the Buncombe County Board of Education tentatively
approved a plan that would allow testing students involved in
extracurricular activities at T.C. Roberson High School for illegal drug use.

If given final approval, the tests would begin in the 2004- 2005 school year.

Roberson Principal George Drake emphasized that he doesn't think there's
any more drug use at Roberson than there is at any other county high school.

"I think parents need some help," he said. "It's that simple. I think
students need some help."

It's clear Drake's objective is not punitive. He wants to give students an
incentive to say no to drugs, and if they're caught using drugs, he wants
to educate them about the harmful effects they risk.

But the prospect of randomly testing students without probable cause to
suspect that they are doing drugs other than the fact that they are high
school students raises some deeply troubling concerns.

Drake's plan calls for testing about 25 percent of Roberson's students who
participate in sports and other extracurricular activities. That would come
to about 200 students over the course of the year, he said.

The tests involve using a swab to obtain a saliva sample from the student's
mouth. The sample would be analyzed at a local laboratory at a cost of $26
to $28 each. Students who tested positive for drugs once would not be
punished if they and their parents agreed to drug counseling. But a second
positive test would result in disciplinary action that would include being
banned from extracurricular activities.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the rights of the people "to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures." No search warrants shall be issued except "upon probable
cause," it says.

Granted, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a drug testing program covering
students involved in any sort of competitive extracurricular activity,
including chess, debate, band, choir and cooking.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who had earlier contended that drug-testing
candidates for Custom Service positions was an "immolation of privacy and
human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use," voted with the majority
on the student case, and justified his concurrence by saying, "You're
dealing with minors."

True, but how much should schools be allowed to intrude into the lives of
students without probable cause and without the specific consent of their
parents? And if parental consent is required, some undoubtedly would not
consent. Would that mean their children would be barred from
extracurricular activities?

Justice David Souter told the lawyer for the school district involved in
the Supreme Court case, "Then your argument is a fortiori good for testing
everyone in school."

Which brings us to the second troubling concern. This plan targets those
students who are active in school affairs, those who display
characteristics parents and school officials alike encourage, those who are
good school citizens.

Those students will now be targeted by being randomly selected for what is
likely to be an embarrassing experience, even if they do not test positive.
Is that fair? If testing is going to take place, shouldn't all students be
tested?

Other concerns include the risk of unfavorably labeling students who do
test positive. Will the counseling made available be sufficient to overcome
the negative impact becoming identified as a drug user could have on a
student's self-esteem?

And when it comes to counseling - who will pay? Drake said he hopes to get
federal funds to pay for the tests themselves.

President Bush has proposed giving an additional $23 million to schools for
drug testing next year. But will sufficient resources be available to pay
for adequate, effective counseling?

Finally, there's the question of whether students or parents will trust any
system of random selection.

That said, Drake makes a compelling case.

"I sense that parents want to believe in their children, and I want to
trust our kids," Drake said. "But kids today have too much mobility, too
much money and too much freedom. I just don't believe they always have the
ability to walk away from drugs on their own."

It seems clear Drake hopes to help students, not punish them. He wants to
provide help to stay off of drugs and hold them accountable. He hopes this
will be incentive enough for students to say no when others are pressuring
them to try drugs.

And it seems clear that parents are not only concerned about their own
children but about the possible harm that could be done to their child by a
friend in an altered state of consciousness.

But there are many questions still and the answers will determine if random
testing can really make a difference. The evidence thus far is mixed. It
suggests that drug use had declined in Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools
since drug testing began there several years ago. When the program began, 5
percent of the district's randomly tested students failed. Last year, it
was 4 percent.

However, a University of Michigan study found drug testing failed to reduce
illicit drug use among students, including athletes. The university said
its study of 76,000 students nationwide showed rates of illicit drug use in
schools that did drug tests were almost identical to those that did not.

At best, random drug testing is a troublesome solution to a deeply
troubling problem.

No parent wants his or her child exposed to the risks of arrest, addiction,
contraction of debilitating and deadly diseases and even death that come
with illegal drug use.

But we all know the power of curiosity, of peer pressure, of the need to
establish independence. Teens need resources to help them make wise judgments.

The threat of being caught by a random drug test may be a pretty flimsy
one, but it may also help some students.

However, if the school system is going to take this route, it ought to
randomly test all students and not just those already going the extra mile
- - but that might require another Supreme Court ruling.