DEBATERS ON DRUGS? / SCHOOLS SHOULDN'T RUSH TO TEST PUPILS

In its final flurry of decisions for its 2001-02 term, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued a 5-4 ruling that could have adverse consequences for children
in America's public schools.

We are talking not about the court's much-discussed decision upholding an
experimental voucher program in Cleveland, but rather about the court's
conclusion that schools may order students involved in extracurricular
activities to submit to drug tests -- whether there is a drug problem at
the school or not.

Seven years ago, the court upheld a narrower testing program involving
student athletes. At the time, the Post-Gazette had this to say:

"The fact that the Supreme Court has approved random drug tests for
children doesn't mean that schools should rush to require them. Schools
should not casually test their students for drugs, any more than they
should erect metal detectors in the absence of a legitimate concern that
students are carrying guns. Both policies alter the atmosphere of a school,
and send the message to students that they are not trusted."

Nothing in the court's decision in the case of Lindsay Earls, a former high
school student in Tecumseh, Okla., makes us reconsider that advice.

Ms. Earls, now a student at Dartmouth College and a self-described "Goody
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.

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 seven years ago in 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 Tecumseh 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 stars, debaters or members of the choir. But before making use of
the power the Supreme Court has given them, administrators should ask
themselves: Is this really necessary?