MORRIS STUDENTS, STAFFERS OPPOSED TO DRUG TESTING

While the U.S. Supreme Court mulls the constitutionality of random drug
testing for high school students involved in after-school activities, a
similar case has bedeviled a Hunterdon County high school since 1999.

The board of education at Hunterdon Central Regional High School approved a
policy in December 1999 calling for random drug testing of students
involved in extracurricular activities and those who have a permit to park
on campus. The policy was knocked down as unconstitutional last year by a
state Superior Court judge who found that a student's right to privacy
superseded drug testing concerns. The case is on appeal, and the school is
awaiting a decision by a three-judge state appellate panel.

Though the New Jersey School Boards Association supports the policy of
random drug testing for students, few school districts in the state are
known to follow such policies.

The school boards association is aware of 10 districts that have some form
of random drug testing for students. The districts are spread across the
state in six counties; Gloucester, Ocean, Camden, Hudson, Hunterdon and
Passaic. No Morris County districts are known to have adopted any form of
random drug testing.

"It does violate students' privacy," said Jaclyn Friedlander, a 17-year-old
Randolph High School junior. "If there's a suspicion and they have good
reason to test, it makes sense; otherwise it's a waste of everybody's time
and a violation of privacy."

Choosing students to test randomly does no good, Friedlander said. Several
students who don't have drug problems could be chosen and that wouldn't
help anyone, she said.

Districts that support random testing, such as Hunterdon Central, believe
such policies are a deterrent to using drugs and can help identify students
who need help.

"Drug testing of students leads to counseling and intervention, not jail
time," said Mike Yaple, spokesman for the New Jersey School Boards
Association. Yaple said that such testing can help find students with drug
problems and get counseling for them before the addiction escalates.

Some have argued in the Supreme Court case that students involved in
after-school programs are less likely to be using drugs.

"It's like punishing kids because they're participating at school," said
Morristown High School Principal Richard Garibell. "The law as stipulated
in New Jersey is that you test kids when you have a reasonable suspicion."

Garibell said the current policy addresses the needs of all students, while
choosing to randomly test only a certain population of students seems to
have limited reach.

"Why just test kids involved in after-school programs?" Garibell asked.
"Does it mean you don't care about the other kids who aren't involved?"

West Morris Central Principal Michael Reilly agreed that random drug
testing is unnecessary and said that questioning a teen's integrity without
any evidence of wrongdoing is self-defeating.

"If you set a climate of distrust, you push the young people away," Reilly
said. "It's a needless exertion of authority."

In the Supreme Court case, an Oklahama school district's testing policy was
challenged by a female student, Lindsay Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth
College. Earls, who tested negative for drug use in a random test, said she
found it humiliating to urinate in a bathroom stall with a teacher waiting
outside.

This week, several Supreme Court justices seemed to embrace the idea of
random drug tests for students involved in after-school activities, a major
step toward allowing drug testing for all students.

The court's ruling in the current case, expected by summer, should answer a
major question left from a 1995 ruling. The court ruled then that schools
may test athletes for drugs. The question now is whether the factors that
made drug testing acceptable for athletes now apply to other after-school
activities, or even students at large.

The reasoning used in 1995 was that students who routinely strip naked in a
locker room have a lower expectation of privacy than other students. The
court also said that students who used drugs while playing vigorous sports
could also be a danger to themselves or others.

Wider drug testing remains relatively rare among the nation's 15,500 public
school districts, lower courts have reached differing conclusions about the
practice.

Some have grown accustomed to allowing random testing of athletes. Matt
Harper, 17, a Whippany Park High School junior, said he understands why
athletes are subject to different rules. But he said random testing is only
necessary for athletes -- not for those involved in clubs where using drugs
wouldn't affect their performance.

In athletics, he said, a student using performance-enhancing drugs creates
an unequal advantage for a team.

Mark Heckler, president of the Morris Plains Board of Education, said he
believes Americans' rights to privacy are constantly being eroded, and said
the random testing of students was no exception.

"I just don't like it," Heckler said. "It smacks of Big Brother."

Randolph school board President Gregory Mark, who also is a law professor
at Rutgers University, said he believes random testing is unconstitutional.

"I think one of the most important things we can teach students is a mutual
respect between students and school authorities," Mark said. "I think that
is best learned only when there is reasonable suspicion. I hope the court
doesn't go that way."