COURT RULED WISELY ON DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court upheld a school district's policy of
randomly testing student athletes for drug use. Last week, the court went a
step further, affirming that a school district may . . . require drug tests
of students who are involved in extracurricular activities other than
sports. The issue split the court by a 5-to-4 vote, but in light of the
court's prior ruling, any other holding would have made little sense.

If schools may require drug testing of students, it shouldn't matter
whether the students are football players or members of the band. The real
question is whether the court is on solid ground in affirming any testing
in the absence of individualized suspicion that a student may be using drugs.

Our sense is that the court is correct to give localities leeway in
addressing drug problems in schools. As Justice Clarence Thomas noted for
the court, the testing program is not designed to punish students, and test
results are not referred to law enforcement. Rather, the program is meant
to be therapeutic. Students who flunk drug tests are encouraged to seek
counseling. The only threat hanging over students' heads is that their
participation in extracurricular activities may be suspended. . . .

Whether such a program is a good idea is a subject of reasonable debate;
you'd hope no district would adopt it without careful thought, a pressing
need and a guarantee that it would not be applied in a discriminatory
fashion. But those do seem questions best left to local officials, not the
Supreme Court.

The real peculiarity . . . is that it is limited to those students who
participate in extracurricular activities. Justice Stephen Breyer, in a
concurring opinion, implies that the policy is bolstered constitutionally
because it "avoids subjecting the entire school to testing" and thus
"preserves an option for a conscientious objector," - that option being to
decline the test and quit the extracurricular activity. . . .