TULIA DRUG POLICY RULING LEAVES QUESTIONS

The decision Tuesday by the Tulia Independent School District to appeal
U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson's ruling in opposition of the school
district's drug testing policy was warranted and deserves further legal
consideration to determine the policy's constitutionality.

A Tulia High School student sued the school district in 1997 on the grounds
the district's policy of requiring students to submit to mandatory drug
testing to participate in extracurricular activities was unconstitutional.

In her opinion, Robinson stated a comparison between the TISD policy and a
similar policy in Vernonia, Ore., was not an adequate comparison.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld random drug testing as a result of the Oregon
case.

According to Robinson, in the Oregon case, "a large part of the student
body was in rebellion and athletes were leaders of the drug culture. The
decision was based in part on the increased risk of sports-related
injuries. There is no contention that the situation in Tulia ISD in any way
resembles that in Vernonia."

There are two issues that warrant an appeal.

Primarily, are there specific legal standards required to enact a school
drug testing policy such as the one in place in the TISD? If there are,
what are they and what constitutes a drug problem in a school that would be
deemed serious enough to approve a policy? Should this decision be best
left to school officials rather than a judge to determine?

Secondly, is it constitutional to apply this policy only to
student-athletes and not other students participating in extracurricular
activities such as band or debate? What about the student body as a whole?

Despite Robinson's ruling, these are questions that need to be addressed
and why TISD officials are justified in seeking an appeal to the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.