DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE SENSIBLY RESTRICTED

The scourge of illegal drugs is everywhere. Even in rural Oklahoma.

That's why the Tecumseh, Okla., public school district established a policy
nearly four years ago requiring students active in extracurricular programs
- - from football to band to Future Farmers of America - to submit to drug
testing prior to participation and agree to random testing throughout the
school year.

Students who refuse to submit to the tests are prohibited from taking part
in any extracurricular activities.

This policy, which stakes out a middle-of-the-road position between
requiring drug tests of student athletes and demanding drug tests of all
students, is at the heart of a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some students at Tecumseh High School objected to the policy and sued. A
trial judge approved the policy, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed. The school district appealed to the high court.

The Tecumseh drug testing policy was written to deter drug use, even though
there was no evidence that drugs were much of a problem there. It was
implemented in 1998, three years after the Supreme Court approved random
drug testing of student athletes not under suspicion of using drugs, ruling
that a Vernona, Ore., policy did not violate the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches.

The court did not say, however, that it is OK for school districts to
establish policies authorizing random drug testing of all students.

But a decision upholding the Tecumseh district policy could open the door
to blanket testing of all secondary students across the country.

Justice David Souter attempted to make that point: "If your argument is
good for this case," he told the district's lawyer during oral arguments,
"then your argument is good for testing everyone in school."

If a school district establishes a drug testing policy based on the need to
deter drug use, he said, then the rationale would cover every child in
every school.

We do not dismiss the efforts of school districts to curb illegal drug use,
and we know that in some schools drug abuse is a severe problem, but
forcing random tests on students not suspected of using drugs strikes us as
an act born of paranoia.

The students who sued the Tecumseh school district did so not because they
opposed antidrug policies, but because they don't believe the government
should unilaterally be able to search someone to catch someone. We agree.

The school district tried to distinguish testing all students and testing
only those who participate in outside activities: The former must attend
school, while the latter take part in activities voluntarily.

But does the student who, for the love of singing, wants to be in the choir
really have a choice? Or what about the ambitious student who knows the Ivy
League school she longs to attend looks favorably on extracurricular
activities?

The Exception To The Rule

We understand the rationale behind the court's approval of random and
"suspicionless" drug testing of student athletes who could hurt themselves
or harm others by using drugs, but that should be the exception to the
general rule that there be some suspicion of wrongdoing before a student is
searched.

The Bush administration defended the use of drug tests for those who want
to participate in extracurricular activities and believes it would be
constitutional to extend the testing to all students.

But such blanket policies deny students who refuse on principle to submit
to drug testing the chance to participate. Perhaps more important, such
policies potentially exclude the very students who could most benefit from
participating in extracurricular activities.