DRUG-TEST RULING: COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

The Supreme Court ruling that schools can conduct random drug tests of all
students involved in extracurricular activities doesn't change the fact
that such tests are neither wise, necessary nor particularly helpful.

And frankly, we don't quite see how such tests are not an unconstitutional
search. The very word "random" makes clear these searches will be conducted
whether there is probable cause or not.

Ah, but shouldn't attacking the drug problem override students'
historically limited privacy rights? Well, that might be a reasonable
argument - except that these random urine tests of glee-club members, the
debating team and athletes target exactly the kids least likely to be doing
drugs. (The case was brought by an Oklahoma honor student and choir member
who passed her drug test but felt humiliated by the experience.)

The 5-4 ruling by the court last week expanded a 1995 decision that allowed
schools to test student athletes for drug use. But no amount of testing or
threatened testing is going to end the student drug problem. Anyone who
thinks it will doesn't know much about teenagers - they're usually not real
big on weighing the consequences of their actions and restraining
themselves accordingly.

Furthermore, the mistrust and alienation engendered by a policy of random
drug tests only pushes our children further away.

Let's not forget: It's no secret which students are doing drugs. Teachers
know who is stoned and who isn't. Detection has never been the problem. And
schools already have ample authority to suspend such students and to see
that they are tested.

But the Supreme Court has legalized random testing of students about whom
there is no suspicion of drug use, all for some presumed deterrent effect.
Wishful thinking by the court has been allowed to trump both the realities
of teenage life and the Fourth Amendment in this case.