RULING OPENS DOOR TO WITCH HUNTS

One has to wonder if our Supreme Court justices have developed a sudden
case of the munchies. How else can a reasonable person react to the Robed
Review's decision upholding an Oklahoma school district's intrusive and
irrational policy on student drug testing?

In case you missed it, the justices ruled that not only is it OK for
educrats to make high school athletes fill specimen cups on command, but
the same indignity may legally be visited upon any student participating in
any school-sponsored extracurricular activity. In other words, both the
captain of the football team and the president of the chess club may be
called upon to prove himself drug-free, even when there's no good reason to
suspect that either is a pothead or worse.

Sounds suspiciously like the French system of justice, wherein the accused
must prove his innocence, rather than having the burden of proof fall upon
the state.

Now don't get me wrong. The drug problem is hardly a matter to be taken
lightly. Certainly I don't condone the use of illicit substances by anyone
- - let alone minors.

Neither, however, do I condone the arbitrary and groundless use of state
power, which is exactly what the Supreme Court upheld.

Study after study has demonstrated that kids involved in extracurricular
activities, including sports, are among those least likely to use drugs and
alcohol. Why then would anyone in his right mind single out this particular
group of students for testing? It's about as goofy as testing for steroid
use in the Greater Kingsport Golf Association.

It's one thing to suspect a student is up to no good if he exhibits the
tell-tale physical and behavioral symptoms of drug use. In such a case,
it's entirely appropriate for the powers that be to compel him to undergo
drug testing.

However, it's a horse of a different color to suspect a student is a
druggie just because he is active in the math club. In that instance it's
an outrageous and unjustified invasion of privacy to make him pee in a cup.

Now to be sure, halos aren't handed out as standard equipment to every
athlete, cheerleader, drama club member or Future Homemaker of America.
Neither are they issued to every priest, archbishop or corporate executive.
There are, unfortunately, bad apples in every walk of life, just as there
are in every high school clique.

I hear some of you saying, "But if a kid is doing nothing wrong, he
shouldn't mind taking a drug test."

Uh huh. And how do you feel about getting pulled over for no reason? Or
having your vehicle searched for no reason? Or having the cops prowl
through your mail and belongings for no reason? Hey, you got nothing to hide.

Others will argue that student drug testing is simply an act of love. We do
it because we care about our children. Right.

Ain't it funny, though, that as a society we love our athletes most? I
mean, the school drug testing craze originally targeted ballplayers.
Belatedly we seem to have found space in our collective hearts for the band
members, yearbook staff and debate society, too.

But what about the boy who always sits alone in study hall or the
overweight girl who wants nothing more than to be anonymous? What about the
countless outcasts who don't fit into any clique and don't, can't or won't
take part in extracurricular activities? Do we not love them also? Are they
not important, too?

If our schools have the authority to administer drug tests without any real
probable cause, then they should test everyone or no one. Everyone from the
janitor to the coaches and teachers to the superintendent to the school
board should be subject to the same witch hunt. It's only fair. And
fairness, after all, is one of the concepts our kids ought to be taking to
heart as they prepare to take their places in society.

What they're learning instead is that in this case, fairness is more an
abstraction than a reality.