HERE I GO AGAIN

If you’re fed up with the subject of drugs, then I can certainly understand.
Because so am I. But that won’t stop me from writing about it again. Because
I have to. It’s my job. You say, "But can’t you write about something else?"
And I say, "Go watch ‘Austin Powers’ again or something. I’ve got work to
do, so get outta the way."

Sure I can write about other things. But this drugs-and-athletes stuff is
really rankling my mental muscle. Two weeks ago, I told you about how Tim
Golden kicked a player off his SLO Blues baseball team because the kid had
smoked some pot. Now, officials at Templeton High School want to drug test
all student athletes, borrowing a policy that’s already being used by the
geniuses who run the schools in Shandon.

Here’s what Templeton High football and baseball coach Jerry Reynolds told
the Tribune this week in an article that didn't have a single source or
sentence questioning the proposed policy: "The one thing that I think every
coach wants to know is that the kids who are doing [methamphetamine] aren't
playing for you. This is one way to assure it isn't happening."

Gee, and I always thought the one thing "every coach wants to know" is if a
kid has any athletic ability.

My problem with testing school kids for drugs is not just that it’s stupid
and expensive and unnecessary–which are good enough reasons, I suppose,
unless you’re a school official–but also because it says to kids that
they’re not to be trusted, and kids already have enough identity
difficulties without being presumed to be liars every time they want to go
out for athletics. I find that really putrid–especially when nobody can
point to anything weird at Templeton High that would lead to such measures.

Athletic director Phil James can’t come up with anything. Drug-crazed campus
dealers preying on the unsuspecting? Whacked-out students nodding off in
class? Drooling athletes counting daisies in a psychedelic haze? Falling
test scores? Nope. We have no problem, so let’s go spend $10,000 a year
testing everyone’s pee so that we can feel that we’re doing something about
this problem that we don’t have. Boy. If these people start contemplating
all the other nonproblems they could be spending money on there won’t be
enough left to buy a basketball hoop.

I sometimes think that Supreme Court judges Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
William Rehnquist, and the other three who OK’d drug testing of student
athletes back in 1995 should all pass a joint around just for the
experience. I wouldn't be terribly concerned if they did in session, black
robes and all, because stoned judges concern me far less than judges who can
soberly declare that students are giving up their constitutional right to
privacy by choosing to participate in sports, as Scalia wrote in the drug
testing opinion. Maybe Templeton officials should join them. Then at least
they’d realize no one’s being turned into snarling beasts, hopeless addicts,
or communists.

Even beyond such human rights concerns, the Templeton proposal is another
one of those drug policies that does more harm than good, like that stupid
law that takes away the driver's licenses from pot smokers, making it
difficult for them to get to work.

I mean, think about it. High school sports are positive outlets for kids. So
why would you take that away from a student who takes a puff off a joint,
just as nearly half of 11th-graders say they’ve done? That kind of thinking
just pushes borderline cases toward more regular drug use by removing them
from the sports they like and the whole athletic social structure. All my
pals are at the game. Guess I’ll just get stoned.

Even if you believe in the "crisis" of drug use in this country, it’s wise
to remember what Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the
three judges in dissent of allowing drug testing of student athletes: "It
cannot too often be stated that the greatest threats to our constitutional
freedoms come in times of crisis."

That’s for sure.

GOTCHA! The overly long saga of Laura Freberg’s tenure ended with a whimper
last week as the Cal Poly administration finally agreed with Freberg’s peers
and granted the psychology professor tenure. But the residue may linger.

According to those involved, Freberg’s lawsuit against the school got far
enough to have depositions taken. While most dealt with the Machiavellian
machinations of higher academia, one stands out as both bizarre and ominous.

Seems Freberg’s team called in former and potentially future county
Supervisor David Blakely and questioned him about age-old, unproven drug
connections. Freberg argued that the questions were relevant because she
believes that her tenure denial was in some part somehow connected to
husband Roger Freberg’s ill-fated political aspirations. Blakely correctly
refused to answer the questions. But now some are predicting that the
videotaped deposition will be used if Blakely decides, as expected, to try
to recapture his seat on the Board of Supervisors.

It’s not hard to see where the inspiration for these legal shenanigans came
from. The "get ’em under oath and see if we can embarrass him" technique
worked so well in D.C. that I guess all the junior Starrs around here still
haven’t learned that voters don’t like it when the legal process starts
being used for political purposes. Take it from me. They don’t.