DRUG DOGS SNIFFING OUT LOSS OF PERSONAL LIBERTY

The following is a circuitous commentary on the recent discussions
regarding drug-sniffing dogs on school campuses.

When I attended Van Nuys High School in the mid-1970s, there were
random student and locker searches: There was no need for probable
cause.

Van Nuys High not only had the usual problems with drugs, although
nearby schools were known to have more significant drug issues, but it
was well known for its violence.

These searches were meant to protect the greater percentage of
students at the expense of constitutional ideals. I say ideals because
constitutional principles are more easily subverted in schools than in
the general population. But examples of authorities usurping personal
liberties become more prevalent, and more widespread, as the problems
become more intractable.

In the 1950s we went from the post-World War II (i.e. Cold War),
covert "investigation" of U. S. citizens to the displacement of these
citizens within their own country. In Vietnam we esca-lated from
search-and-rescue to search- and-destroy missions as our political and
military goals became ineffective: These escalated into free-fire zones.

Today, the USA Patriot Act, or, at least portions of it, is removing
individual rights for the "greater good." To use a Vietnam-era
oxymoron, we have to destroy it in order to save it. All of these
examples have something in common: They are all reactions to
situations in which we have lost control of something.

Drug- and, perhaps, explosives-sniffing dogs in public schools are
just another response to additional failed endeavors: the War on Drugs
and the War on (Violent) Crime. Now, these, especially the latter, are
the ultimate oxymorons.

When I was in high school, I wasn't paying much attention to these
ideas. It is interesting that, when I may have had something to hide,
I cared less than I do today when I have nothing to fear from an
unethical search.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize two points. First, whether I have
anything to hide ought not to influence my willingness to give up any
of my rights as a U. S. citizen. Second, we ought to remember that
when we are asked to relinquish some of our rights, it is a sign of
failed policy, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

Jay B. Litvak is a Costa Mesa resident.