MANDATORY DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS A POOR CIVICS LESSON

In 1998 the school board in Tecumseh, Okla., adopted a policy requiring
seventh to 12th-graders to submit to drug testing in exchange for the
opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities. Those activities
would no longer be limited to potentially dangerous sports or other
athletics - but also include school choirs, future farmers clubs and even
debate teams.

A lawsuit brought by a former high school student, now a freshman at
Dartmouth College, is being supported by the ACLU and is under
consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus the high court will make a
decision that will affect students' privacy rights or give schools another
weapon in the fight against student drug use.

The court may rule that schools have the right to administer drug tests
even without evidence that the student or the school has a drug problem.
The issue is whether such drug testing of students is a violation of the
Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Some proponents of
testing argue that students don't have, mainly because they don't expect to
have, the same rights as adults - and that in fact they relinquish any
rights once they seek to represent the school in extracurricular
activities. They contend that testing deters illegal drug use by students
before it becomes a problem.

Opponents of mandatory drug testing make the argument that engaging
students in after-school activities is the most effective way to keep them
from using or experimenting with drugs. There's no way to determine how
many students will be put off by the idea of trading a urine sample for a
cheerleading try-out or a spot on the chess team. If students who wish to
join after-school clubs and other teams must open themselves to greater
scrutiny than other students, how many potential greats will opt out as a
matter of principle?

But not all of them who refuse to submit will necessarily be drug users.
Many students with well-developed critical thinking skills will view drug
testing as an invasion of privacy and even worse - a barrier between
themselves and educators, coaches and counselors. There should be some
middle ground on this issue. It may be that schools should be allowed to
test students who are engaged in activities that involve strenuous physical
exertion and those for which there is a reasonable suspicion of drug use.
The U.S. Supreme Court should not give school systems carte blanche to
institute any manner of drug-testing program they see fit.

There are a host of other concerns not at all peripheral to the main issues
that must be addressed. For example, taking the matter out of the hands of
parents who would rather not have their children drug tested; the costs to
school districts for testing so many students at as much as $25 or more per
test and the potent possibility of false positives leading to countless
lawsuits. Diminishing the personal privacy of all students, simply for the
sake of some symbolic gesture, is counterproductive to keeping students off
drugs and in school-related endeavors.