STUDENT PRIVACY JUST A SPECIMEN FOR PROFIT, POLITICS

WASHINGTON -- "Folks, it's saleable, but we have to stand up and sell it."

That pitch Thursday morning came from Rep. John Peterson as he fervently
hawked expanded drug testing in the schools. "We need to raise this debate
nationally," the Pennsylvania Republican declared. "Testing makes a huge
difference. Testing can help parents know when their kids are in trouble.
Testing can help schools know when they have a lot of kids doing drugs.
Kids will know that if they do drugs, they will get help."

When the Supreme Court ruled late last month in an Oklahoma case that
schools can legally require students to take drug tests as the price for
participating in extracurricular activities, that 5-4 decision galvanized a
movement. The next step is to persuade skeptical school districts to make
specimen cups as much a part of the high-school experience as prom night.
That was Peterson's message as he spoke to a little-known group that
understands the trickle-down economics of the drug wars.

Peterson was the keynote speaker at an all-day conference sponsored by the
Drug & Alcohol Testing Industry Association (DATIA). It should be no
surprise to anyone who understands the folkways of Washington that the
administrators of drug-testing services have their own 1,200-member trade
association. DATIA represents this fast-growing industry on Capitol Hill
and sponsors courses in such 21st-century specialties as "Certified
Professional Collector Trainer in Urine Specimen Collections." Small wonder
that nearly 200 DATIA members came to Washington to learn how they might
profit from the Supreme Court's new permissive stance on school-based drug
testing.

OK, it's unfair to suggest that these purveyors of cup-related services
view the issue solely in terms of expanding their market. For they are also
passionate advocates of their unique frontline role in the battle against
drug abuse. Typical is Ann Schwieman, part owner of a Flint, Mich.,
company, who suggested during the morning session that parents and students
should feel "privileged" to submit to random drug tests. But Schwieman,
whose business currently revolves around workplace testing, also admits,
"When I started working with safety-sensitive employees, I predicted that
the next big group would be school administrators."

That is indeed the dream. In most states, drug testing in the schools has
been limited to athletes. But now the high court has potentially opened the
floodgates to permit random testing wherever there is a high-school chess
team, a marching band or a chapter of the Future Farmers of America. As
Brian Walters, a partner in a Russell Springs, Ky., testing firm puts it:
"My business is based on volume. The biggest thing I have ahead of me is to
educate the school administrators."

Part of that education process lies in teaching school boards how to take
advantage of the Oklahoma decision. Tom Eden and Bill Judge, two attorneys
experienced in drug-testing cases, gave a 90-minute seminar outlining the
implications of the ruling. Eden emphasized that a semblance of privacy
must be maintained: "Direct observation of the student in my opinion would
most likely be considered a constitutional violation." But the legal system
offers few protections for, say, a debate-club member who is unable to
produce a sample. "If there is no physical reason for it," Judge said, "it
should be treated as a refusal to test."

Briefings such as this are the way that a Supreme Court ruling is
translated into everyday life. The attorneys suggested several areas in
which current case law might well be expanded in future rulings, such as
permitting random testing for anyone who drives to school or wants to go on
a field trip.

What this suggests, assuming that school boards assert their legal rights,
is that pretty soon students might be able to avoid drug tests only by
limiting their activities to walking to school and dutifully attending
classes. Students with philosophical objections to testing will have to
choose between their convictions and the awareness that admission to
competitive colleges virtually depends on a well-rounded roster of
extracurricular activities. And this kind of enforced isolation might not
aid more troubled students, because the typical profile of a drug abuser is
someone who has no outside interests beyond getting high.

By granting a green light to this intrusive form of in-school testing, the
Supreme Court has moved the issue from the legal to the political arena. In
every school district, parents and other voters will have to weigh the
trade-offs between student privacy rights and the seeming allure of
drug-free schools.

There is also the pesky question of how to pay for expanded testing in an
era of depressed school budgets and state fiscal crises. After speaking to
the DATIA conference, Peterson put out a news release announcing that he
would soon be introducing legislation in the House to provide $100 million
for random drug exams in the schools.

Make no mistake, $100 million will only be a down payment if widespread
testing becomes the latest anti-drug panacea. "I see the schools as
potentially a much bigger market than the workplace," says Richard Bucher,
a senior vice president with the Rockville, Md., drug consulting firm of
Bensinger, DuPont & Associates. "The interests of parents will drive this."

It is, shall we say, a sobering prediction. At a time when many Americans
have relinquished their right to bear their shoes as they prepare to board
planes, it would be unfortunate if the nation's students also had to
routinely hand over their bodily fluids to a higher authority. But now that
the Supreme Court has ruled, the only way to stop this Orwellian approach
to education is if parents and school boards just say no.