COURT'S DRUG TEST RULING JUDGES STUDENTS GUILTY

The narrowness of the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision last week will be little
comfort to the thousands of students who will likely find themselves
subjected to a most intrusive practice -- drug testing.

A 1995 high court decision first allowed random drug tests for student
athletes. Thursday that scope was expanded to allow schools to require such
testing for any student who participates in an extracurricular activity.

Want to join Spanish Club? Sure, take a vial, there's the restroom, return
when you're done.

The intrusiveness of such a procedure on personal liberties is staggering.
Where are the Constitutional protections from unreasonable searches and
seizures if school districts are allowed to conduct such practices without
a shred of suspicion that a student is involved in drugs?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly assessed the drug-testing program
endorsed by the high court as "not reasonable, it is capricious, even
perverse."

The nation has seen a rise in random and mandatory drug testing in recent
years in a variety of arenas in recent years for a variety of legitimate
reasons.

Some businesses require them as a condition of employment, and that is
their right. The government has gradually expanded testing requirements to
protect public safety by requiring them of employees in the transportation
sector.

For professional athletes in a variety of sports, testing for both
performance-enhancing drugs or recreational drugs has become almost routine
- -- with the notable exception of baseball.

But we are not convinced there is any such legitimate reason for the court
to endorse such a policy for school children. Justice Stephen Breyer, who
was the swing vote on the decision, said he hoped the testing reduced peer
pressure and "addresses a serious national problem."

When the high court first sanctioned random drug tests for student
athletes, it was dealing with a school where drug abuse was rampant and
athletes were known to be among the users. But in this week's ruling the
school -- rural Tecumseh High School in Tecumseh, Okla. -- there was never
any showing the school had such problems.

There is a thin thread of reasoning that students "represent" the school by
participating in athletics or extracurricular activities, and therefore
have both an enhanced responsibility to be drug-free and a diminished
expectation of privacy.

The paradox, of course, is that students who do not participate in
extracurricular activities are probably more at risk for drug-engaged activity.

Even more chilling, some members of the court indicated they would like to
consider the issue of required drug testing for all students -- not just
those out for sports or extracurricular activities.

Which would, of course, make them all guilty until their urine tests came
back to prove their innocence.

We can only hope that individual school boards will show more reason and
more respect for constitutional rights than that demonstrated by the high
court justices last week.