COURT'S DECISION PUZZLING

TO THE EDITOR:

The recent Supreme Court ruling permitting random drug testing on students
who participate in any extracurricular activity surprised me. The arguments
of the majority position seem to defy common sense. How could enforced
testing not violate one's right to privacy?

Certainly it's understandable in the workplace, where safety is an issue,
and I can see that principle applying to some school activities. But to
impose it on kids who join the choir or Future Farmers of America would
actually hinder efforts to get kids involved in after-school activities,
the very thing being used to help keep them off drugs.

Justice Clarence Thomas' argument that our war against drugs makes the
invasion of students' privacy insignificant is as ridiculous as saying that
our war against terrorism warrants the random tapping of telephones.
Perhaps we should apply this ruling to members of the court themselves and
impose periodic random drug testing on the justices.

Steve Schmidt

Tulsa
----------------------------
Unneeded Expense

TO THE EDITOR:

Who will foot the bill for the new drug screening option for children in
after-school activities? Our school districts can't afford to employ enough
teachers. A few years back the taxpayers passed House Bill 1017, which was
supposed to limit the number of students in a classroom. And now school
districts will just pay fines instead of hiring enough teachers to lower
the number of students in each class. This means we're back to 35
children-plus in one classroom. Are schools becoming drug czars or are they
there to educate our children?

Lisa Cook

Lexington