LOCKNEY DRUG TESTS

Dear Editor,

As a resident of Lockney, it has been humorous as well as sad to observe the
actions of people regarding the drug-testing issue which the ACLU and media
in Lubbock (and elsewhere) have blown totally out of proportion.

I guess one good thing that has happened is that the issue has caused me to
read the Constitution again, something I have not done since being a student
at Lockney High School some 28 years ago.

The ACLU is now suing LISD for violating Brady Tannahill's 4th Amendment
rights against illegal search and seizure. Where have they been in the
business world? What is so different about having to take a drug test prior
to employment even with no prior proof or suspicion of drug use? No one
seems to have protested that companies and the government have the 'right'
to require this of their applicants.

What about the question of metal detectors in airports and schools? I have
never attempted to carry a gun in an airport or school, but I am searched
anyway. What is probable cause?

Probable cause for metal detectors comes from a history of airplane
hijackings, terroristic threats, and shootings in our nation's schools.
Probable cause in the LISD drug testing issue comes from eleven Lockney
residents being arrested, tried, and convicted for selling drugs two years
ago. This would be equivalent to 878 people in Lubbock being arrested on the
same day for drug dealing. Would you think that these people were only
selling to each other? I think not, especially in light of the fact that the
students at LHS will tell you that illegal substances are readily available
to them and frequently used.

For three years before the drug testing policy was adopted, various meetings
were held for the public to have input into assessing the problem and trying
to figure out a way to solve it. I attended those meetings and never once
saw Mr. Tannahill present. As a matter of fact, Mr. Tannahill's only
presence at a meeting was the week before the testing was to begin, fully
backed with televisions cameras and news media which he 'alerted'.

Numerous times, Mr. Tannahill stated that he was not against the drug
testing, only against having to sign the consent form. He stated that his
son had no problem with the drug test, and had himself signed the form.
Therefore, if Mr. Tannahill and his son have no problem with the drug test,
but only the form consenting to it, then where does the ACLU get off filing
a suit on behalf of Brady Tannahill for something about which he and his
parents have no problem ?

My children have a right to an education in a safe environment. I imagine
that if Brady were injured in a sporting event or assaulted on a field trip
by a fellow student under the influence of an illegal drug, Mr. Tannahill
would be screaming at the top of his lungs (and with media in tow) demanding
to know what our school system was going to do to protect his child.

The drug test is a positive action on the part of our administrators and
school board to help deter a catastrophe and to give our students a reason
to say "NO".

Every day in life, we give up certain rights to protect ourselves and
others. It comes down to choices. We don't have to fly if we fear hijacking.
We don't have to apply for a job that requires a drug test if we don't
choose to. And most importantly, we don't have to live in Lockney or attend
school here.

Our school system accepts many transfers from this area who come here
because of the quality of our system. If Mr. Tannahill doesn't like what
we're doing, he has the right to take his child somewhere else so that those
of us (and there are many) who are grateful for the bold step that our
school authorities have taken can get on with our lives and with educating
our children.

Unless someone has lived in Lockney for several recent years, observed what
has been happening with our youth, talked to the teachers about how students
on illegal substances affect their classrooms and the learning environment,
and tried to be a part of the solution beforehand instead of after the fact,
they have no 'right' to even comment on the policy.

The ACLU will not show up if one of our children dies or is threatened by
someone using illegal drugs. They won't be here to pick up the pieces of a
young person suffering from a serious addiction and offer them love and
counsel. They won't be here long after the stench of what Mr. Tannahill has
stirred up has finally been laid to rest. They will travel on to bigger
pastures as they follow the misguided thought that they, and only they, can
interpret our constitution as the founding fathers meant it to be.

If the ACLU wants to hold LISD and its administrator accountable for what
they consider to be a violation of one child's rights, then let us hold the
ACLU accountable for any young persons life that is lost or ruined by drugs.
They want to hold us accountable for something that does no harm to anyone,
drug testing. Therefore, let us hold them accountable for their own
self-seeking actions.

ACLU spokesman Harvey Madison was recently quoted saying, "I hope that their
(the children's) eyes are open and also they are learning from this that
adults in power can be untrustworthy and can make mistakes and do bad
things." I believe that may be a reality, but Mr. Madison needs to realize
that he need only look in the mirror to see an example of who our students
think are untrustworthy, power-seeking adults.

Sincerely, Ricky Mosley Lockney, TX

Dear Editor:

I had the opportunity to be in your community on the evening of March 23 and
attended your local board meeting in Lockney.

I was so moved by the event that I am compelled to write this letter. I have
to tell you that I am so impressed with your community. You have taken the
role of David in trying to slay Goliath.

I have been in the education business for well over twenty years now and
have never seen anything to compare to what I saw on this evening. It was
inspirational and I fought back tears of admiration several times during the
presentations. It was a meeting of a community that has taken a stand and
has united in a most remarkable manner. The point made that rang home and
was obvious was the fact that this community has taken an adverse situation
and has not become divided; rather has become unified.

Being an outsider I could just sense that there were people melded together
for the common good of their community who probably have had great
differences of opinions and varied walks of life in the past. They now,
under the banner of doing what is best for kids have bonded into one body of
dedication and commitment. I applaud your efforts and commitment to your
kids.

I was so impressed on how you handled the meeting with grace, dignity, and
professionalism. It is a highly emotional issue and to have that many people
gathered together and maintain an appropriate decorum is a credit to you as
a community, your leadership, and your young people. The people who spoke on
your behalf were articulate, relevant, and demonstrated a passion for kids.
I know I was moved by the experience and just thought how proud anyone had
to be to be from Lockney. The points made were strong and I was particularly
impressed by the comment, "we propose nothing that will hurt kids." I do not
know where this will go in the courts. I wish you well. You deserve to be
able to do in your schools what you think is best for kids. I can only think
how awesome it would be one day to hear a legal precedent called Tannahill
vs. Lockney ISD as the precedent that allows schools to take control of
their needs and do what is best for their kids. Your community has handled
the situation in a manner that you can be proud. Those of us in other
communities watch with interest and pride in what you are doing. We can only
hope that in our places that we can demonstrate when we need it the courage
and unity that Lockney has modeled for the state and country. Good Luck!

May God bless, Virdie Montgomery Levelland, Texas