TOP COURT ALLOWS WIDER TESTING FOR DRUGS IN SCHOOLS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday gave school officials broader
authority to administer drug tests to students and to discipline teachers
who inject controversial ideas into the curriculum.

Acting on two closely watched appeals on the first day of the court's new
term, the justices dismissed a constitutional challenge to an expanded
school drug-testing program in Indiana and rejected a First Amendment
challenge filed on behalf of a North Carolina drama teacher.

Outside the courthouse, more than 1,000 members of the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People noisily demonstrated to protest the
court's lack of minority law clerks. NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and 18
other people were arrested for trying to demonstrate on court property
rather than on the public sidewalk.

The court's opening session on the first Monday in October is typically a
day of disappointment for lawyers and litigants, and this Monday proved no
exception. More than 1,600 appeals were dismissed without a hearing.

The actions in the school cases are not binding rulings, but they let stand
conservative appellate decisions that are likely to be widely cited. Over
the past decade, the high court has consistently deferred to school
authorities in disputes involving the scope of
constitutional rights.

Three years ago, the court said high school athletes can be forced to
undergo drug tests. This does not violate a student's privacy rights under
the Fourth Amendment, the court said, because of special circumstances for
sports. For safety's sake, athletes traditionally submit to physical exams
before the season. Moreover, playing under the influence of drugs might
lead to severe injuries.

But some school officials saw this ruling as allowing even broader testing.
In 1996, the Rushville, Ind., school district announced a policy of random
and unannounced drug tests for students who participated in all
extracurricular activities, including the library club, the student council
or Future Farmers of America. To participate, a student must consent to
submit to regular urine samples to test for illegal drugs, alcohol or
cigarettes.

Officials stressed the policy was not punitive. Those who tested positive
were barred from the extra activities or from driving to school until they
were tested again and found to be clean, but they were not arrested or
prosecuted.

The parents of William Todd, a freshman who videotaped the school's
football games, and several others filed a lawsuit with the aid of the
American Civil Liberties Union. They said that since many affected students
were not suspected of drug use, the testing was not justified. Moreover,
the students were not participating in potentially dangerous activities,
they said.

Nonetheless, a federal judge upheld the program, and the U.S. appeals court
in Chicago agreed on a 7-4 vote.

The ACLU appealed the case of Todd vs. Rush County, arguing that the lower
court ruling will be seen as a green light for random testing of most
students. But the justices dismissed it in a one-line order.

The teacher-related case -- this one involving the North Carolina drama
coach -- is expected to deal a severe blow to the notion of
constitutionally protected ``academic freedom'' for teachers.

Over 14 years, Peggy Boring had coached a high school drama team that
regularly won state and regional awards. In 1991, her team of four
actresses performed the play ``Independence'' by Lee Blessing, the story of
a single mother and her three grown but troubled daughters, one of whom is
lesbian.

Though the play was intended for a drama competition, not a school
production, some students saw the performance, and one parent complained to
the school board. A few months later, the teacher was removed from her post
and transferred to another school. She sued, contending that the First
Amendment and the principle of academic freedom shielded her from being
disciplined simply because of the play's controversial theme.

On a 6-5 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed. The teacher ``has no
First Amendment rights derived from her selection of the play
`Independence,' '' the appeals court said, calling the matter ``nothing
more than an ordinary employment dispute.'' The National Education
Association appealed the case of Boring vs. Buncombe County, but again the
justices dismissed it without a hearing.

1997 - 1998 Mercury Center.

Checked-by: Joel W. Johnson