MORE SCHOOLS SHOULD MULL DRUG TESTING OF ATHLETES

It seemed clear since Grand Blanc schools first began drug-testing of
athletes in 1998 that this was a reasonable stipulation to place on
students who wanted to play sports. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has
given all such programs a major boost, other districts ought to explore
following Grand Blanc's lead.

The district still has a legal hurdle to clear, as it remains in the throes
of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union representing a
former student who refused to take a drug test to wrestle. The ACLU is
pegging its hopes on the Michigan Constitution, which it says goes farther
than the U.S. Constitution in providing protection against unreasonable
search and seizure. A trial in Genesee County Circuit Court is anticipated
this fall.

But even the ACLU allows that last week's Supreme Court ruling in an
Oklahoma case sets back its chances against Grand Blanc, even if it does
not outright demolish them. The 5-to-4 ruling allows drug-testing for
extracurricular activities beyond sports.

It took admirable courage for Grand Blanc to blaze a trail by becoming the
only district in the area and possibly the first in the state to enact this
protection of their students, which was certain to be resisted. But
competitive athletics place students at risk of injury, and it is more than
reasonable for a school to want to make sure that participants are at least
drug- and alcohol-free.

Students who prefer not to submit, either on principle or because they know
they would not pass, can simply stay out of sports, which are
extracurricular anyway and not a primary function of public schooling.

For students, to play is a privilege not a right. For school districts,
doing what they can to protect students who do play from injury is a
serious responsibility.