BLUFFS SCHOOL BOARD SHOULD RETHINK TEACHER DRUG TESTING STAND

PEORIA -- Of all the reasons teachers in the Illini Bluffs School
District might have to skip class today, is the School Board's
insistence on random, ongoing drug testing of them a justifiable one?

That's why teachers in the Glasford district are on strike. From all
indications, the board and administration are prepared to take a long
one. All other contract issues - pay, benefits, etc. - have been
resolved. The union offered a compromise - testing with probable cause
- - but the School Board has not wavered, even though its members
"believe," as communicated in a news release, that "all district
teachers would satisfactorily pass a drug and alcohol test, just as
all support staff employees passed the test this past year."

That does beg the question: If this isn't a problem, then why is it a
problem?

The School Board's attorney, Karl Meurlot of Decatur, says the loss of
two students in a drug-related vehicle accident - one to death and the
other to the criminal justice system - has figured prominently in the
School Board's thinking. Its members are going this route because
teachers are "kind of role models for students," he said.

This page's counter to that would be, well, why not test students then
- - those who have the "privilege" rather than the "right" to
participate in athletics and other extracurricular activities or get
some other benefit - as other school districts do and as the U.S.
Supreme Court has ruled permissible? "I think that's the next step,"
said Meurlot, adding that Illini Bluffs already tests support staff,
by previous agreement, and that the board and administration -
superintendent, principals - are willing to undergo a monthly urine
sampling, as well. As such "they didn't think it would be a big deal."
He believes the district already has the authority to test with cause,
though the union disputes that.

No one defends substance use and abuse. Pre-employment drug tests are
common in the private sector, and it's fair for employers to expect
their workers to be sober and alert and to intervene when that is not
the case. But it's a matter of degree. Asked whether this random
policy is unprecedented in the state's public schools, a spokesman for
the Illinois Federation of Teachers said he was "unaware" of others.
Meurlot said he doesn't know of any, either. (The State Board doesn't
keep those stats.)

There's a reason you don't much see these policies elsewhere. This
page has long thought them iffy on constitutional grounds,
specifically in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure. Meurlot confessed that he shares
those concerns - "I would say that it would have some constitutional
problems unless it's been agreed to by the bargaining unit" - and
would not recommend that the School Board implement the policy
unilaterally.

One is familiar with the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument
proponents often pose, but that's easy enough to poke a hole in. Would
central Illinoisans be comfortable with government searching their
homes on some whim - clearly unconstitutional - that something
government deemed unacceptable may have been done there (or not)? So
why would it be OK to violate one's person but not one's home? In a
lot of ways, these are guilty-until-proven-innocent policies, which
started to crop up locally about 15 years ago. This page warned of the
slippery slope then - first it was student athletes, then band
members, then a local private high school testing all its students.
Now it's teachers.

"If there is some behavior or some incident that mandates or
necessitates a drug test, or if someone is involved in a position
where drug use would make them dangerous, those things can be
tolerated by the Constitution," says Ed Yohnka of the ACLU of
Illinois. "But random, suspicionless testing across the board is not
to be tolerated in a free society ... Where do we stop once we start
down this path?" Make no mistake, this is intrusive government.
Granted, there are fewer recognized protections in the workplace, but
if there is to be no reasonable zone of privacy, not even inside your
body, well, suddenly America feels a bit less like America. Employment
is not ownership.

Meurlot assures that this policy is "not a witch hunt," though it's
not difficult to foresee the potential for abuse. A union official
adds that if board members are so concerned about role modeling,
they've achieved the opposite of what they intended by sowing doubt
about how sober the staff is, where little or none previously existed.
One has not witnessed any clamor for this policy from
constituents.

Finally, the public silence from the School Board and administration
is irritating. That they want to speak with "a single voice" to avoid
"confusion," according to Meurlot, is noted, but the elected officials
here have an obligation to their students, parents and taxpayers to
explain what's going on and why.

Unions are not always right, but they should be reluctant to negotiate
away a constitutional protection. The School Board is not unanimous,
said Meurlot. The legitimately wary minority should prevail upon the
majority to reconsider its stand, which is not worth a long strike and
its attendant complications. Get these kids and teachers back in
school, where they belong.