Commentary

HARMING WHEN WE WANT TO HELP

CAMBRIDGE -- I helped raise two kids through their teen-age years (they are
now in their 20s) and I did some parental snooping and eavesdropping.

I listened in the hallway as I happened to be passing by their bedrooms
while they were talking on the phone.

I peeked in their doors when they weren't around and I peeked in the
windows of their cars when they weren't inside them.

I didn't trust everything they told me and, sometimes, I checked up on it.

But among the many actions I never took to keep my older kids safe from
drugs and other dangers were these two:

- I never brought in a drug-sniffing dog to search their closets.

- I never forced them to give me a sample of urine or hair so I could
test them for drugs.

I never even considered taking either of those extreme measures. But I did
think about searching their rooms, before deciding that would be a bad idea.

They were basically good kids, and whatever I could have learned, I
thought, wouldn't be worth the damage to our relationship.

The kids in Cambridge and other area school districts are basically good
kids, too. But the parents and the schopl officials in several area
districts have decided that the benefits of conducting locker searches with
drug-sniffing dogs is worth the damage it does to their relationship with
their kids.

We mistrust you, these parents are saying. And our mistrust is more
important than your right to privacy.

Now some parents and school officials in Cambridge are thinking of taking
their mistrust even further, by requiring students who want to take part in
extracurricular activities to take drug tests.

Luckily, not everyone with a say thinks drug tests are a good thing.
Christine Kopec, a lawyer and a member of the school board, has smart
things to say about drug tests.

"Education is best accomplished in an atmosphere of trust and mutual
respect," she said. "The atmosphere in public schools tends to be more penal."

Penal is the perfect word to describe what is happening in our schools.
You'd think our kids were convicted criminals, we're so worried about them
getting away with something.

And when they do something wrong, like write the word "Boom" on a bathroom
wall, we treat them like they're serial offenders by charging them with a
felony.

We bring in dogs to sniff their lockers, and if the dogs happen to bark at
the smell of a sandwich the kids left in a backpack, we let officers paw
through everything in the locker.

And now we're thinking about telling our kids that, to play chess with
their friends, or to join in the Key Club car wash, they have to give us
something we can test, like urine or hair.

Beth Dillard is a member of the local school board. She admits the tests
are expensive.

"Some people have said," she said, "if it helps save one kid, it's worth
the expense."

She's wrong in many ways.

First of all, what if the "expense" is the destruction and of trust between
students and school officials?

Drug testing could cost more than $10,000.

Christine Kopec pointed out that district officials have said in recent
years they couldn't afford to hire a part-time music teacher.

But imagine if the drug test money were instead used to hire that part-time
music teacher. The new teacher might help several students discover a love
of music, giving their lives fresh meaning and direction. Isn't that, also,
a way to "save" kids?

Not any measure that might stop students from taking part in a dangerous
activity is worth doing.

Speeding is dangerous. Should the school district put officials out on
street corners with radar guns to make sure that none of the students are
driving too fast on their way to and from school?

Life has many dangers, including drugs. It is a vain and ultimately
damaging exercise to try to control our children's behavior so that none of
those dangers ever touch their lives.