COURT BACKS RANDOM DRUG TESTS FOR STUDENTS IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday approved random drug testing of public
school students who participate in a broad range of extracurricular activities.

But several local school officials say they have no plans to start testing
students.

Before Thursday's ruling, such tests were allowed only for student athletes.

In its 5-4 ruling, the court asserted that a school's interest in detecting
and preventing illegal drug use outweighed students' right to privacy.

"We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular
activities is a reasonably effective means of addressing the school
district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug
use," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas for the majority opinion.

The court, however, stopped short of allowing random tests for all students.

Opponents were quick to lash out.

The opinion strikes a blow to students' right to privacy, said Dick
Kurtenbach, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of
Kansas and Western Missouri.

"We're not pleased at all with this decision," he said. "It represents a
continuous erosion of the privacy rights of students in public schools. And
our view is that the protection of the Constitution should not stop at the
schoolhouse door."

Although schools should be allowed to conduct drug tests, there need to be
more stringent and appropriate guidelines for testing, Kurtenbach said.

"We simply would like to see some standard applied to where they (schools)
need some suspicion that a student is engaged in the use of drugs before
invading their privacy," he said. "Simply doing it based on a rumor, we
think, goes too far."

Oklahoma case

The Supreme Court ruling stemmed from a legal row in Tecumseh, Okla., about
40 miles southeast of Oklahoma City.

In an attempt to curb a drug problem, school district officials in
Pottawatomie County adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy in
1998. It required all middle and high school students wanting to
participate in extracurricular activities to consent to random drug testing.

Lindsay Earls, an honors student who had tested negative, sued the
district, contending that the policy violated the Fourth Amendment, which
protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

Writing for the majority, which included Chief Justice William Rehnquist
and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer, Thomas
said that "students who participate in competitive extracurricular
activities voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on
their privacy as do athletes."

In the dissenting opinion, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens,
Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter called the drug-testing program
"capricious, even perverse."

Numerous schools installed random urine tests for athletes after a 1995
Supreme Court ruling allowed them. But wider drug testing remains
relatively rare among the nation's 15,500 public school districts. Lower
courts have reached differing conclusions about the practice.

Several area districts have shied away from random drug testing, saying it
was either unnecessary or unfair to presume a student's guilt.

High school activities associations in Kansas and Missouri have policies
prohibiting the use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco products by students, but
neither requires districts to randomly test students.

Most public and private schools require students involved in competitive
activities to sign a code of ethics pledging to avoid the use of controlled
substances. Violators can be suspended from the activity or even expelled
from school.

Local reaction

Officials in the North Kansas City School District said they never felt the
need to institute such a policy for the district's 16,000 students.

"There had been some discussion among athletic directors just because of
all the recent court cases, but at this point it still does not appear to
be a need, even if it is now legal with the Supreme Court," said Mary Jo
Burton, a district spokeswoman.

If Independence schools were to adopt a random drug testing policy,
district officials would have to go to the community first, said Jim
Hinson, incoming superintendent.

"I understand the purpose of random drug testing. It is a safety net for
students," he said. "But it's not an issue for us now....If parents say,
'Hey, we want this to happen,' then it would happen."

Cost could be an issue. With tight state budgets this year, area districts
are curtailing spending. Many school officials said drug testing was an
expense they would be reluctant to take on unnecessarily.

Superintendents in Olathe, Shawnee Mission and Blue Valley -- the three
largest school districts in Johnson County -- said there really was no need
for random drug testing in their areas.

"I'm not saying there's not a problem," said Olathe Superintendent Ron
Wimmer. "I'm not going around this with my head in the sand. On the other
hand, I think we have to give kids more credit and self-responsibility."

Sometimes it's students who notify officials of their peers' drug use, he
said, and random testing could alienate those students who don't take drugs.

Stephanie Dewey, a senior at Archbishop O'Hara High School, was staunch in
her opposition.

"Random drug testing is an invasion of privacy," she said. "And I don't
agree with it."

Some parents and students supported Thursday's Supreme Court ruling.

Ron Karlin, father of a Blue Valley High School graduate and a sophomore,
said he would endorse such a policy. His children have been involved in
band at school.

"If you sign up for a team, or if you're volunteering to participate in
that activity, you're kind of accepting their rules and would go along with
the fact that (drugs and alcohol) are what you're giving up," he said.

A loss of privacy doesn't bother Rebecca Ralstin, a sophomore at Shawnee
Mission Northwest High School. Drug testing could help schools find
students who need help, she said.

"The school I go to, it's not really a problem," she said. "If it is, it's
only with a small percentage of the kids, but still that's a percentage we
don't want to have."

Sean Stewart, a 2002 graduate of Raytown High School and a national debate
champion, sees the high court's ruling as a useful safeguard.

"When it comes to actions to prevent the use of drugs, I have no qualms,"
he said. "Random testing is going to send a message. Just saying you are
going to do it would be a deterrent."