TROUBLESOME SCHOOL DRUG CASE

In its final flurry of decisions for its 2001 2002 term, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a 5-4 ruling that could have adverse consequences for children
in America's public schools.

Not the experimental voucher program in Cleveland, but the court's
conclusion that schools may order students involved in extracurricular
activities to submit to drug tests whether or not there is a drug problem
at the school.

Lindsay Earls, now a student at Dartmouth College and a self-described
"goodie two-shoes," objected to a requirement that she undergo a drug test
as a condition of belonging to the National Honor Society and the school
choir at her Oklahoma high school. Although she tested negative, she
challenged the blanket testing policy as a violation of her rights under
the Fourth Amendment to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures."

In brushing that claim aside, Justice Clarence Thomas in his majority
opinion made two principal arguments: schools have a right to promote the
health of their students, and high school students have a minimal
expectation of privacy, since they are subject to physical examinations and
vaccinations.

The latter argument does away with a distinction emphasized by Justice
Antonin Scalia in a similar case seven years ago upholding drug tests for
school athletes. In that case, Justice Scalia pointed out that athletes are
in and out of locker rooms, and in and out of their clothes, on a regular
basis. "School sports," he added, "are not for the bashful."

Neither, apparently, are choir and the debate team. But both justices
misconstrue the privacy issue at stake here. It's not about locker-room
nudity or taking off one's clothes for a doctor's exam. Testing for illegal
drugs without reasonable cause is a psychological violation as much as a
physical one. Schools shouldn't engage in such testing casually, or because
an administrator wants to score public-relations points for having a "zero
tolerance" policy.

Justice Thomas also emphasized that the Fourth Amendment did not apply
because school officials in Oklahoma did not turn over the results of drug
tests to the police.

But that suggests that as long as the cops aren't called in, public-school
officials can be as intrusive and arbitrary as they please, to the point of
conducting random strip searches for drugs or weapons simply to make a
point. Fortunately, this decision cannot and does not absolve school
officials of using their own discretion. We can imagine situations in which
a pervasive drug problem might justify random searches of students, and not
just football strays, debaters, or members of the choir.

But before making use of the power the the court has given them,
administrators should ask themselves: Is this really necessary?