THE COMPLEXITIES OF SCHOOL DRUG TESTING

Officials Should Avoid Random Tests, Which Suggest Presumed Guilt And Erode
Students' Confidence In Civil Liberties.

VIRGINIA Attorney General Jerry Kilgore and the nation's drug czar, John
Walters, were in Richmond this week touting the merits of Virginia's new
law enabling drug testing in public schools.

The issue, however, is far more complex than a rah-rah, anti-drug news
conference would suggest, and Virginia school divisions should carefully
consider the ramifications of implementing such policies and assess their
far-reaching effects on students.

Granted, public schools have a right and responsibility to maintain
discipline and ensure the safety of students under their charge.

But random testing - lacking, that is, probable cause for reasonable
suspicion in specific instances - undermines students' respect for their
nation's commitment to the democratic values and civil liberties embodied
in the Bill of Rights they are expected to learn in civics class. Such is
the danger if school authorities routinely assume guilt and then look for
evidence to support the assumption.

Virginia's law, which takes effect July 1, requires the state Board of
Education to adopt guidelines for voluntary and mandatory drug testing. The
law was crafted to reflect the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding an
Oklahoma case allowing random drug testing of students participating in
competitive, extracurricular activities.

Kilgore's office is working with the Virginia Board of Education to make
sure its drug testing guidelines pass legal muster. Though Kilgore is quick
to point out that he is not forcing school systems to implement drug
testing programs and the decision is solely each district's, by his
initiative he is clearly encouraging them.

Walters described drug testing in schools as a powerful tool that is
misunderstood. True, and all the more reason why Virginia educators should
not use such a tool arbitrarily.