A DRUG TEST FOR SCHOOLS

School boards must now do what the U.S. Supreme Court refused to do with
students facing random drug tests if they participate in after-school
activities - show some restraint.

In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the school's
concern about drug use outweighed individual privacy rights. The court
ruled in 1995 in an Oregon suit that student athletes could be tested.
Then, the ruling made sense: The mixing of drugs and physical exertion
could be fatal. Students required to take health exams had less expectation
of privacy than other pupils, the court said.

But Lindsay Earl at Tecumseh High School in Oklahoma, whose more recent
challenge was decided by the court, was called out of a choir group to test
for drugs, despite no evidence that the girl used any chemical substances.
The school system's own results from the tests argue against their
usefulness: Out of 505 high school students tested for drugs, only three -
all athletes, by the way - tested positive.

The majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist concluded that the
tests were a "reasonably effective means of addressing the school
district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting" drugs.

In the dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg echoed the argument made by
Lindsay Earl's attorney - that the tests violated the constitutional
protection against "unreasonable search and seizure." Ginsburg called the
testing "capricious, even perverse."

The decision of the court did not address random tests for any student,
though that can't be far away.

School systems can be more discriminating than the court. The reward for
students who don't use drugs should be more than a "negative" result. Trust
is something they deserve and something from which they can learn.