THE FOURTH AMENDMENT GETTING KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL

Let's take a show of hands on this scenario. Your child comes home from
middle school and says that unless you give permission for a test for drugs,
alcohol or tobacco, he or she cannot attend classes.

No, it's not for baseball or cheerleader tryouts. And he hasn't yet learned
how to drive the school bus. What if policy called for in-school suspension
and drug-counseling sessions for testing positive or refusing to take the
screening test'?

Whatever happened to due process? For that matter, who decided the Fourth
Amendment was null and void?

Out Panhandle way, between Amarillo and Lubbock, lies the south plains
community of Lockney. Last week, school officials administered drug, alcohol
and tobacco screening for all students grades 6-12. Parents of sixth-grader
Brady Tannahill have refused their son to be screened and have threatened
litigation if the Lockney ISD pursues punitive action. Pee in the cup, kid,
or else.

That's my hand you see waving frantically.

I thought this was America, where one was presumed innocent until proven
guilty. Isn't there an immortal political document that guarantees the
"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"? When did school
districts become the parents and make all the decisions?

I have the utmost respect for the Tannahills. If I walked in their moccasins
for a mile, I'd invite the school board, the superintendent, the principal
and the horse he rode in on to sit cheerfully in the theological place of
eternal punishment.

When Larry Tannahill stands on his beliefs and asserts that "They're going
to punish my child because I believe in the Constitution," he's got my vote.
The good old boys who run the Lockney ISD need to re-think the
constitutional rights of their constituents, because from here, the
mandatory drug screening smells like horse droppings.

For the record, I don't believe school districts should be in the business
of equating drug screening with earning an education. Other districts in
Texas have encouraged students involved in extra-curricular activities to
volunteer to random drug screening, but requiring students to express their
fluids before they can express their thoughts in the classroom is
outrageous.

There is no record in Lockney of rampant drug use. Dealers have not been
seen whispering to elementary school children near the swing sets.
Long-haired hipsters wearing dark shades have not been found in the high
school restrooms. The ounce of prevention rule must hold sway in the south
plains hamlet because all the teachers and staff members submitted to the
drug test. History records that this is how the Salem witch trials started.

My problem with all this yahooing over drug testing is the irritating whine
that if one does not submit to having one's fluids analyzed, perhaps,
somehow, one is guilty of drug abuse.

Live and let live. If the good folks in Lockney abstain, good for them!
Perhaps it comforts them when the howling north winds sweep down from the
Dakotas.

All I ask is that those pure in driven snow rejoice in their own virtues and
leave me to mine. Or failing that, sit and read the classic tale of human
hypocrisy The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg. Or, if the play isn't banned
from the high school library, read Arthur Miller's The Crucible and reflect
on religious fanatics who hang their neighbors because they don't think like
them.

Hats off to the Tannahills for not being coerced into believing that their
son's education in the Lockney ISD depends on drug screening. Presumably,
they think they know their son better than the school board (and a white
paper cup) do. If anything good can come out of this mischief, it's the
classic story of human freedom struggling against the usual monolithic
political process. With a little luck and inspiration, perhaps the
Tannahills' case may have profound implications.

What if drug screening was a prerequisite for school enrollment in next
week's Texas Assessment of Academic Skills writing prompt? What if, instead
of the usual lame persuasive writing prompt in which students give
convincing reasons for their multi-paragraph response; instead of writing
500 words on why school uniforms are an effective discipline management
strategy, why not give students a real opportunity to respond with
conviction of the heart?

Why not allow students to write out their insights on how one rural school
district perceives getting an education? The essays might enlighten the
Lockney ISD school board; at least it would confirm that drug screening has
nothing to do with the ability to write clearly.

Here's a TAAS writing prompt that students would have an opinion on writing
for 55 minutes:

"Johnny Little is a sixth-grader at McCarthy Middle School in Pokeyville,
Texas, where he is on the A/B honor roll. Recently, the school board decided
to do drug screening for all students grades 6-12. Any student who does not
comply with the mandated drug screening will receive in-school suspension
and drug counseling until his parents agree to give their permission.
Johnny's parents do not wish to give their permission, stating that their
son's rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment are violated, along with
his personal privacy. In a multi-paragraph response, state whether you
support the school board's authority to drug-test all students or the
parents' right to raise their son according to their personal beliefs. In
your response, give convincing reasons for your position."

Bob Davis provides commentary to DFW Suburban Newspapers Inc.