SCHOOL DRUG TESTING PASSES MUSTER

The high court has reasserted schools' custodial role. But schools would be
wise not to abuse the authority and gear up needless drug testing programs.

THURSDAY'S Supreme Court ruling allowing random drug testing of a broad
range of high school students returns public school authorities to a
custodial role not assumed since 1985.

Before that year, school officials were seen as in loco parentis, or acting
in the place of parents, and conducted random student searches whenever
they thought it necessary to keep order and protect the safety of their
charges.

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials were not substitute
parents so much as agents of the state. As such, their actions were
restricted by constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

"Mom," "Dad," welcome back. But don't lean on random drug testing to get
the kids through school drug-free.

In loco parenting, just like the

real thing, easily backfires, turning the best intentions to opposite
effect. An example would be an aggressive drug-testing program that became
a barrier to participation in extracurricular activities, which,
themselves, discourage drug abuse.

We tend to agree with Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the thin 5-4
majority, that "A student's privacy interest is limited in a public school
environment where the state is responsible for maintaining discipline,
health and safety."

Adolescents often look like very fresh-faced adults, but most of them are
not. No longer children, they are not yet mature enough in their judgment
either to bear all of the responsibilities or to assume all of the rights
of adults.

Still, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg touched a chord in her dissent when she
argued for adhering to constitutional protections, lest schools "teach
youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."

Such is the danger if, in the absence of some compelling reason, school
authorities routinely assume guilt and then look for evidence to support
the assumption.

How can society entrust the newly minted adults leaving high school with
the responsibilities of liberty if they have been given no opportunity to
exercise it?

Legal scholars say the reasoning in the majority opinion virtually assures
that random testing of all students, not just those pursuing
extracurricular activities, would pass constitutional muster with the
current court.

But as parents, in loco and otherwise, are apt to say, "can" doesn't mean
"should."