DRUG TESTS AND STUDENT PRIVACY

The desire to protect adolescents from the dangers of drugs, alcohol
and tobacco is a sound and reasonable one. But sometimes it takes on a
zeal that ignores other legitimate interests--such as the bedrock
American belief in granting people a secure zone of privacy. That is
exactly what has happened in Tecumseh, Okla., where students in grades
7 through 12 are now required to submit to drug tests before they can
participate in extracurricular activities, including those required
for certain academic courses.

Drug testing of public high school students is no longer unusual. In a
1995 case, the Supreme Court upheld testing of kids playing on school
sports teams, and many schools have embraced that approach. But the
broader policy followed in Tecumseh goes too far.

It is being challenged in court by two 16-year-old juniors with the
help of the American Civil Liberties Union. One of them, Lindsey
Earls, has been involved in her school's academic team, choir,
marching band and National Honor Society. She took (and passed) the
drug test under duress because without it, she would have been
excluded from choir and band. Worse still, she would have been shut
out of the choir and band classes she planned to use to satisfy her
fine arts requirement--and quite possibly from the college music
scholarship she hopes to win.

There is no consistency in the requirement. Though athletes also have
to be tested, students involved in the yearbook, student government
and the school play don't. But there is no reason to think band
members are more likely to use drugs than yearbook staffers. For that
matter, testing kids interested in extracurricular pursuits amounts to
targeting those who are less likely than others to go astray.

The Supreme Court has left open whether this sort of program is
constitutionally permissible. It upheld drug tests of
student-athletes, partly because they could choose whether to
participate. But at Tecumseh High School, students who don't take part
in band or choir are barred from the accompanying academic classes,
making the requirement far more coercive. The court also noted that
football and basketball players have little privacy anyway, since they
generally shower communally. But choir members don't normally have to
undress together.

A better approach is to test any student whose behavior suggests
substance abuse--focusing on the kids who are the real problem. The
Supreme Court shouldn't cooperate in a policy that makes student
privacy an oxymoron.