EDITORIAL: CSI DRUG POLICY IS A GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

The College of Southern Idaho board took a difficult step in the right
direction Monday. By imposing a drug testing policy (albeit a modest one),
the board declared that CSI will not tolerate employees who use drugs in
the workplace or come to work under their influence.

Criticism is inevitable, but the issue boils down to one simple question:
"Is it OK for CSI employees to be impaired at work?"

Well, is it?

Do local taxpayers and students favor a school where impaired employees can
operate with impunity? Probably not. Given that, it's appropriate the board
begin to deal with this touchy issue.

As drug policies go, CSI's is pretty tame. It allows testing of employees
involved in accidents and of employees whom supervisors reasonably suspect
of drug use. It does not provide for random testing of employees, nor does
it authorize pre-employment drug screening.

Over time, CSI should aim to add those other measures.

The sad fact is that more than one in 12 American workers is impaired by
drugs, every day. That ratio cuts across the entire employment spectrum,
from factory workers, to construction foremen, to executive vice
presidents. And as private-sector businesses increasingly turn to drug
testing, workers with chronic problems are forced to hunt for employers who
don't test for drugs.

As long as public employees aren't subject to aggressive drug testing, it's
inevitable that some drug users will find their way onto the public
payroll. Idaho's colleges, secondary schools and elementary schools
certainly aren't exempt.

This will change only when the public demands it.

One CSI faculty member argued against random drug testing at this week's
CSI board meeting. She questioned whether other area professionals, such as
lawyers and accountants, submit to such testing.

But that logic is flawed. Many lawyers and accountants are self-employed,
which means they set their own policies. They also succeed or fail on their
own. We know some of each who have failed in private practice for just this
reason.

Public employees, on the other hand, are not self-employed. They are
subject to policies set by society. In the case of CSI's drug policy,
society is represented by the board of trustees.

More profoundly, true professionals set high standards for themselves. They
also don't bristle when called to account. From a legal standpoint, courts
have held time and again that employers have a right to require drug tests
of their employees.

Millions of private-sector employees have to submit to random drug tests.
Teachers and other public employees shouldn't expect much sympathy on this
issue. Not when they hold themselves up as role models for young people and
tacitly condone drug testing of students.

Leaving teachers exempt is sheer hypocrisy.

It all boils down to what we demand from public employees when they're on
the job. Do we mind if they are impaired while on the public payroll?

CSI deserves credit for starting down the right path.