PRINCIPAL TAKES WRONG TURN IN INSTITUTING DRUG-TEST RULE

I would not allow my children to attend a high school at which Michael Beck
is principal.

Moreover, based on the Groveport Madison High School principal's seeming
disregard for individual rights, I'm not sure I would trust him with any
school policy weightier than when to replace the disinfectant cakes in the
boys room urinals.

Beck pushed through a requirement this year that students be drug tested as
a prerequisite for obtaining a parking permit. A total of 265 students paid
$26 each for a urine test in order to park on the grounds of the school in
southeastern Franklin County.

Only one tested positive, the punishment for which is a three-week
suspension of parking privileges and a requirement to undergo counseling.

Beck said the policy, approved by the school board after he and the
district's assistant superintendent of students recommended it, also
permits random drug testing throughout the academic year. He indicated that
as frequently as once a month, some number of parking-permit students --
selected by computer -- will be tapped to drop another urine sample.

The policy has not been uniformly embraced by either students or parents,
Beck acknowledged, noting of the latter's reaction, "I would say it's
mixed. I'm not going to lie. If I were taking a tally now, I would say that
it is 70-30 for."

He allowed that some parents have carried their concern to other courts of
resort. "The civil-rights department," he said Friday. "The AFL-CIO."

Beck later affirmed that, in the case of the latter, he was not referring
to the American Federation of Labor but to the American Civil Liberties Union.

He indicated that the pee-to-park plan was debated before it was taken to
the school board for a vote. He conceded, however, that the viewpoints of
neither parents nor students were sought.

Asked for the number of school parking-lot accidents in the past three
years in which alcohol or drug impairment played a part, Beck responded, "I
would say very little, if any."

Would it not then seem that, in the almost total absence of drunk or drug-
addled students playing dodge 'em in the parking lot, an arbitrary rule to
curb an essentially nonexistent problem might be somewhat Draconian, not to
mention possibly illegal?

Gary Daniels, spokesman for the ACLU of Ohio, said the rule "definitely
raises constitutional concerns."

"I want to help kids," Beck said, defending the rule, "and we have some
kids who have problems. Parents want to know if their kids are using or not.

"The idea is not disciplining them, but educating them. If they're
impaired, we're trying to get them into a treatment program."

Such comment would seem to indicate that the school system believes itself
a partner with parents in directing the choices their children make. If so,
why not make parents part of the discussion to determine the need for such
a radical requirement?

Truth be told, Beck did not seem to think that the new rule abridged or
compromised any rights. Asked for his take on making it a prerequisite for
anyone regularly parking on school property, including teachers, he
replied, "I don't have a problem with it. . . . It really comes down to
what the union leadership would agree to or not."

If a public school has a role to play in thwarting drug or alcohol use, its
natural, appropriate and most-valuable capacity is to educate. That is the
societal encumbrance for which it is paid.

If the alcohol and drug-related accidents on school property are at or near
zero, establishing a policy to lower them is akin to implementing a dress
code for the emperor's new clothes.