THE COURT ERRS

Schools Should Reject Random Drug Tests

Sometimes more sensible heads prevail on the front lines than back at the
command post.

That's the case with the question of whether schools should be able to
conduct random drug tests of students who are involved in extracurricular
activities.

Seven years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that random drug tests are
constitutional for student athletes. Last week, the court broadened the
group that can be searched to include students who participate in other
activities.

Fortunately, none of the school systems in the Daily Press readership area
is planning to implement such tests. A few may revisit their policies based
on the new ruling, thinking it could give them a new tool for dealing with
the drug problem. That's a bad idea.

Subjecting students to random drug tests as a condition of participating in
extracurricular activities doesn't make sense. Students who are involved in
band or athletics or debate or theater - who keep up the required grades,
who make the commitment to practices and rehearsals and meetings - probably
aren't the ones we should be most worried about.

If we want to zero in on students who might be using drugs, it would make
more sense to target those who don't come to school regularly, whose grades
suffer, who don't participate in school life. Those students shouldn't be
subject to random testing, either, but it would make more sense than
targeting students in positive activities.

Since extracurricular activities are so beneficial, why create obstacles
that could drive students away? It isn't hard to imagine a young person who
might be dissuaded from going out for an activity because he or she didn't
want to face the drug test - just when the activity could be the best thing
for that child. From athletes to budding actors, lives are profoundly
influenced by high school activities. The discipline, the sense of
accomplishment, the relationship with a coach or sponsor could be a child's
path away from drugs. Don't give them more free time to find the wrong
thing to do.

Strangely, Justice Stephen Breyer thought this choice might be what makes
drug tests acceptable: A "conscientious objector" has the option of
quitting the activity to avoid the test. Is that the incentive system we
want, especially for students who may be teetering on the edge?

And why should schools be involved in drug testing anyway? The goal is
therapeutic, but what evidence is there that a significant number of
students involved in extracurricular activities need therapeutic
intervention? Should all be subject to the most intimate intrusion because
a few need help?

If a student seems to have a problem, and trained school counselors have
reason to suspect substance abuse, the school should deal with that problem
- - on an individual basis. By involving the parents, absolutely. And, if
necessary, community agencies. Take action where there's evidence that
action needs to be taken.

And be very careful about punishing children at school for what they do out
of school.

In a society that strives to protect citizens' rights and privacy - that
requires the police to have probable cause and a warrant to search a
student's home - can we justify intrusive searches of bodily fluids in the
absence of reason to suspect a student is involved with drugs? The answer,
despite the court's ruling, is no.

And what's the next step: random searches of any student, as some legal
scholars predict?

The Supreme Court has offered school systems an opportunity to teach a
lesson in civics. Just because the court says something is legal, doesn't
make it right, doesn't make it good policy.

So, school divisions: Do what you do best - focus on education, on
providing an array of meaningful opportunities for students, on bringing
skilled staff together to help those with problems. Keep students busy in
positive after-school activities - don't drive them away with ill-advised
drug tests that, despite the court's ruling, undermine citizens' treasured
right to be protected from unreasonable government searches.