STUDENT SURVIVAL: THE NEW BATTLEFIELD

When The Drug War Invades The Chess Club

Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in the case of the Board
of Education vs. Earls that it is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment
to randomly administer drug tests to all high-school students who
participate in extracurricular activities. In other words, it is now
perfectly legal for a school to force a cheerleader or the president of the
chess club to pee in a cup -- anytime -- to keep their membership in
after-school programs. The decision didn't come as a surprise. During oral
arguments on the case in March, several Supreme Court justices expressed
strong support for student drug testing. At one point, Justice Antonin
Scalia asked Graham Boyd, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case on behalf of
defendant Lindsay Earls: "So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are
orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to
rule?"

Even though they had anticipated defeat, opponents of the war on drugs --
and its new battlefield in the classroom -- found it deeply disappointing.
These critics argue that by targeting students -- particularly those who
participate in extracurricular activities, be they athletes, prom queens or
Future Farmers of America -- participating schools unfairly single out
students who are often the least likely to be doing drugs in the first
place, and drive students at risk for drug use away from the activities
that might take the testing of high-school students is just taking one more
step down the road of having people say we've had enough.

This article first appeared on salon.com