EMORY'S PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG TESTS; INVASIVE, EXPENSIVE AND UNNECESSARY

Recently, the University enacted a new policy subjecting all prospective
employees to urine-based drug tests. The Emory Chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union feels that this policy is a mistake; it lacks any
clear benefit while being costly, inefficient and arbitrary in its
application. Worse yet, it is an unjustified intrusion into the personal
lives of employees.

The concept of universal pre-employment drug testing assumes, without
cause, that all applicants are guilty by placing the burden of proof on
them to demonstrate their innocence. Regardless of the legality of such a
requirement, the policy signals a clear disrespect for civil liberties. The
extension of this principle would justify almost any intrusion into an
employee's personal life. Should the University also conduct searches of
all prospective employees' homes, where they might be hiding illicit drugs?
Should it conduct psychological profiles of job applicants to determine
criminal tendencies? When the principle of presumed innocence is belittled,
we all become suspects.

The program, which applies only to incoming University staff and not to
prospective faculty or students, is also potentially destructive to the
employees' morale and sense of fairness, equality and community. Many
consider the tests humiliating and invasive. These are not mere guesses:
The Emory Employee Council conducted a volunteer poll of a number of
employees and found that roughly 80 percent -- a disturbingly high
percentage -- considered the tests "unacceptable."

Urinalysis tests costs roughly $35 per employee. Yet they are ineffective
indicators for the drugs with the greatest impact on job performance. With
the exception of marijuana, most drugs are no longer detectable through
urinalysis after 24 to 48 hours.

By granting the faculty a "special privilege" of exemption from these
tests, the University sets an explicit double standard of looking the other
way when a college professor chooses to smoke marijuana, while condemning
staff members for doing the same.

The high costs of this program require considerable justification, yet the
University has failed to demonstrate a compelling need for the new policy.
Del King of the Department of Human Resources has acknowledged that the
administration has no evidence of a drug problem among the staff. Emory's
only attempt to cite an impetus for the policy change is that many
employees were using the Faculty-Staff Assistance Program, a counseling
service that sometimes addresses drug abuse. Alice Miller, Vice President
of Human Resources, has suggested that this may indicate a drug problem.

However, employees use FSAP services for many reasons aside from drug
abuse, including help with bereavement, employer-employee relations, stress
issues, depression and other mental health problems. Even when an employee
does go to FSAP for a "drug problem," it doesn't necessarily indicate that
person is using drugs; it could be to receive counseling about how to deal
with a spouse or child who is using them. Most importantly, as FSAP's
services are confidential, it is inappropriate and unethical to use such
information in an attempt to identify wrongdoers or set policy. This
standard of selective confidentiality undermines employee trust in the program.

How, then, does the University justify this policy? The main argument
proposed is that Emory was one of the only top employers in the Atlanta
area without a pre-employment testing policy, making it a potential haven
for drug users afraid of testing by other employers.

This argument doesn't hold up, either. The drug testing industry concedes,
and studies show, that most drug users abstain from drug use while in a job
search. This argument also seems to forget that Emory is a university, not
a corporation, and should be considered as such. A quick glance around the
country shows that most of Emory's local and national peer institutions do
not engage in universal pre-employment drug testing.

In any case, the University has not demonstrated that the existing tools of
reference screening and criminal background checks are ineffective methods
for selecting a competent work force. Nor have they considered the
possibility that pre-employment drug testing may actually divert resources
and attention from these more revealing measurements. Emory's goals would
be better served by directing resources to raising staff wages, thus
encouraging productivity by making jobs more valuable to current employees
while attracting higher-quality applicants.

Oddly, Emory does not currently employ a for-cause employee testing policy.
It is perplexing that Emory would not test an employee who showed overt
signs of drug use, choosing instead to reserve the drug test for people the
University has no reason to suspect.

Mainly in response to dissent from the Carter Center and Employee Council,
the University Senate will be debating these issues next week and will
consider suspending the testing policy while its consequences are reviewed.
The EU-ACLU will be hosting a public forum this Thursday to give the Emory
community an opportunity to debate and discuss this important topic.

We must strive to maintain the academy's esteemed tradition of critical
inquiry, open discourse and dissent, rather than allow administrative
heavy-handedness and corporate emulation to dictate University policy.

ACLU Student-Union President Nathan Tobey is a College senior from
Watchung, N.J., and ACLU Vice President Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell is a
College sophomore from Salt Lake City, Utah.