OPPOSITION TO DRUG TESTING PART OF PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

I would like to respond to some of the statements made by Mr. Hayburn in
his Sept. 5 letter to the editor regarding the drug-testing policy recently
implemented by the Alexander School District. Mr. Hayburn begins by
stating, "Everyone has said his or her piece on the student drug-testing
policy at Alexander." I have actually seen relatively few public statements
about the policy, considering the number of people living in the Alexander
School District. Based on the actions taken by the school board, I would
have expected an outpouring of support from members of the community. Also
conspicuously absent are any public statements from any Alexander school
district administrator in support of the policy.

While Mr. Hayburn's letter seems to focus on the use of steroids by
high-school athletes, it is important to note that the Alexander
drug-testing policy does not include tests for steroids or nicotine. At
least two of the Alexander School Board members have stated that the
drug-testing policy does not cover steroids because the costs are
prohibitive. However, according to public statements made by the school
board president and repeated in the "Drug and Alcohol FAQs" posted on the
district Web site (www.alexanderschools.org), the district does not test
for steroids because they do not "impair the function of student athletes"
and that money is not the issue.

I am not afraid of my children testing positive for drugs nor do I have
anything to hide. I am concerned with our society's continuing acceptance
of the erosion of the rights of many due to the actions of a few, which is
often the result of a lack of creativity from various authority figures on
how to address a particular problem.

No clear evidence has been presented to the Alexander parents or community
supporting the existence of a serious drug problem in our middle school and
high school. No evidence has been shown that other actions have been taken
to reduce what problem does exist. No measurements have been proposed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the expensive drug-testing policy that our
school board has forced upon the district. There is no evidence that
significant research was performed by anybody in the district surrounding
implementation of the policy.

And if a serious drug problem does exist, no effort has been made to
communicate the magnitude of the problem to the parents and the community.
If the district has a drug problem serious enough to warrant this kind of
action, shouldn't the parents have been informed early and often? If the
district is going to spend up to $25,000 a year on a drug-prevention
program, shouldn't the program be designed to benefit all of the district's
students, not just the athletes and kids who drive to school?

The drug policy is not necessarily "there to stay." Board members serve
four-year terms at the discretion of the community. Three of the Alexander
School Board members face re-election this November and the other two in 2007.

Finally, I disagree that stating facts and questioning decisions that have
considerable impact on my children and community should be described as
"griping and complaining" or "whining and crying." I call it "participating
in democracy."

Doug Keiter, Alexander parent and alumnus

Chase Road

Athens