RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE IS WRONG

Our View

When Techumseh, Okla., high school student Lindsey Earls and several of her
classmates were pulled out of choir practice and told to take a random drug
test, Earls thought it was plenty weird.

Neither she nor her fellow choir students were suspected of using drugs;
the random urine test they were forced to take that day proved they were
not. The school district just thought the policy, which required drug tests
as a condition to participate in extracurricular programs, was a sensible
way to battle student drug use.

Earls and her parents disagreed, and contacted the American Civil Liberties
Union. A lawsuit was filed on the grounds that the district policy of
"suspicionless" drug tests violated the Constitution's protection against
unreasonable searches.

"The potential that four or five kids may use drugs is not a good enough
reason to invade the privacy of all the other kids," said Earls, now a
freshman at Dartmouth College.

The case was heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday. A ruling is expected by
summer. Judging from several justices' comments, the court is likely to
side with the school district, much as it did in 1995, when it ruled that
schools could test athletes for drugs.

We disagreed with the 1995 ruling, and continue to oppose the practice of
testing students for drugs in the absence of suspicion.

Supporters of the drug testing for students involved in after-school
activities such as 4-H and band say the random tests are a deterrent. We've
always believed band and other after school activities were a deterrent.
Random tests may actually push kids away from that which would save them.