SCHOOL DRUG TESTS OVERSTEP PRIVACY BOUNDS

When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld random drug testing at Tecumseh High
School in Pottawatomie County, Okla., last June, a copycat Virginia law
seemed likely.

Sure enough, on July 1, a new state law will allow Virginia school boards
to adopt drug testing procedures that conform to the Supreme Court ruling.
The Tecumseh plan permits random urinalysis tests on any students
participating in extracurricular competitive activities.

The band or the choir, the math-club team or the Battle-of-the-Brains squad
all qualify.

The Virginia Board of Education is drawing up guidelines.

Appealing as this thrust may seem on the surface, school boards should not
rush to action. Being forced to urinate in a cup when there is no suspicion
of wrongdoing is, at best, an indignity. Schools should be sure that the
testing is worth the cost before they infringe so broadly on personal privacy.

Currently, two Virginia public high schools, in Lynchburg and Salem, do
random tests on athletes. The Lynchburg program costs $40,000 and
identifies between two and 13 drug users annually.

That's somewhere between $3,000 and $20,000 per catch, a mighty hefty sum.

Of course, no one knows how many potential drug users were deterred by the
presence of a testing policy. School officials say there is strong
anecdotal evidence that students become more aware of their personal
decisions and behavior if there's a chance that bad behavior will be exposed.

In drawing up guidelines, the state school board should be guided in part
by the presentation of national drug czar John P. Walters. Appearing in
Richmond last week, Walters said his office envisions plans that are used
for intervention rather than punishment. Attorney General Jerry Kilgore,
who joined him, said hair and saliva are more likely to be tested than urine.

Since Virginia plans aren't yet written, one wonders how either could know
what various localities are likely to adopt. But minimizing invasive
actions and elevating counseling over a "gotcha" mentality make sense. Even
better would be limiting drug tests to those students whom the authorities
have cause to suspect.

Treating all students as potential law-breakers may do as much to foster
contempt and evasion as it does to contain illegal drugs.

Odds are that the students most in need of detection are not the ones
singing in the choir or joining the debating society anyway.