DISTRICT SAYS 'NO' TO RANDOM DRUG TESTS

Last week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing random drug testing
of high school students involved in any extracurricular activity will have
no effect in Oakland's public schools, said Superintendent Dennis Chaconas.

"We've never even considered drug testing in Oakland under my leadership,"
Chaconas said. "It doesn't align with my philosophy."

The case came before the high court after two Oklahoma high school
students, one of whom was a member of the National Honor Society and
academic team, sang in the choir and played in the school band, charged
that their school district's policy of random drug testing without
suspicion violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search.

The court held that the school district's policy, which stemmed from a
prior 1995 Supreme Court decision that allowed random drug testing of
student athletes -- but not students in the chess club or choir, for
example -- did not violate the Fourth Amendment for four reasons.

As in any case involving Fourth Amendment questions, the decision to
constitutionally search someone must rest on the "reasonableness" of the
search, such as probable cause in the case of a police officer searching a
suspect.

The court said in its 5-4 decision that schools are allowed to test without
suspicion, because they have "special needs" that stem from their
commitment to keeping students from taking drugs. "Because the
'reasonableness' inquiry cannot disregard the schools' custodial and
tutelary responsibility for children ... a finding of individual suspicion
may not be necessary," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion.

The court also ruled that participants in extracurricular activities have a
lessened expectation of privacy and that the means of the drug test --
collecting urine samples while counselors wait outside the bathroom stall
- -- amounts to a "negligible" intrusion upon one's privacy.

Lastly, the court found that the school district's interest in protecting
its students from drug use was served by its policy and that the evidence
presented of a drug problem in the Oklahoma district was sufficient to
warrant the testing.

The court, however, also said that showing "a particularized or pervasive
drug problem" was not necessary to allow suspicion-free drug testing and
that solely the desire to prevent "the substantial harm" of childhood drug
use was strong enough to uphold the policy.

Reaction to the ruling was quick and divided.

"We think it's a very distressing decision," said Ann Brick, a staff
attorney in the San Francisco office of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU's National Drug Policy Litigation Project represented the
plaintiffs in the recent Supreme Court case.

"We all want to protect our kids from drugs and prevent them from taking
drugs, but this across-the-board drug-testing policy is really
counterproductive," Brick said.

Brick said that studies have shown that one of the best ways to keep
students from taking drugs is to have them involved in extra curricular
activities. Chaconas agreed, saying, "We want kids to participate in extra
curricular activities, because we believe it keeps kids off drugs."

Oakland police would not comment on the matter.

Brick also said the policy was "a very significant invasion of privacy."
She noted that students have to reveal what medications they are taking
before the drug test, such as, she said, anti-depressants, AIDS medication
or birth-control pills, an admission that amounts to "a tremendous invasion
of privacy."

But Bob Maginnis, vice president for policy at the Washington D.C.-based
Family Research Council, said the invasion of privacy concerns were "really
a stretch." He also noted that the kids involved in extracurricular
activities are often looked up to by other students on campus.

"The kids that are actually involved in multiple extracurricular activities
in schools tend to be the sub-set of leaders at the school," he said. "If
the example is you are to be drug-free, that sets a very positive example
for the rest of the school."

Howard Simon, a spokesman for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America in
New York, stressed that his organization was concerned with prevention and
not policy, but added, "Anything that is within the law that can act as a
deterrent is a good thing."

Maginnis agreed with the court that the tests were not invasive and that
when children decide to participate in extracurricular activities they
subject themselves to increased scrutiny.

He added that the drug-testing policy was warranted because it does not
involve the police, but is aimed at alerting parents. "That's the beauty
here, they're going to tell the parents," he said.

The ACLU's Brick countered that the National Education Association and the
American Academy of Pediatricians -- two organizations with children's
interests at heart -- sided against the random drug tests.

"One of the problems with this decision is it's based on the assumption
that students are guilty before being proved innocent," she said.

Chaconas echoed this sentiment, and said he believed instituting the random
drug testing would deter kids from participating in after-school activities.

While there is no concrete way to know how many school districts across the
country already have adopted the policy or will adopt it in the wake of the
Supreme Court's decision, Chaconas said he did not believe it was prevalent
in California.

"I don't know any of my colleagues in California that support this," he said.