RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS IS A STAB AT THE HEART OF OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In January of 1999 Lindsay Earls was summoned from choir class and told she
should report to the cafeteria. She was joined by other students, all of
whom knew why they were there. They had been randomly chosen for a drug
test. Officials escorted the students to the bathroom and ordered them to
provide urine samples, which were tested for the presence of illegal drugs.

School officials had no evidence that Earls or any of the other students
chosen had used drugs. The Tecumseh School District in Oklahoma doesn't
have a documented drug problem; however, it does have one of the toughest
school drug-testing policies in the United States. The district requires
that high school students must undergo drug tests if they wish to take part
in any extracurricular activity, including such havens for drug use as the
chess club, debate team and the choir. Even if the student tests negative,
he or she must also agree to random drug testing throughout the year.

Humiliated by the experience, Earls sued the school district with the help
of the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal district court ruled
against Earls, but the students filed and won an appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals. The case is currently in front of the Supreme Court after the
school district's decision to appeal the district court's decision.

Attorney Graham Boyd, who is arguing the case on behalf of Earls and her
fellow students, believes that drug testing violates students' Fourth
Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Under the
amendment, law enforcement officials must show "probable cause" for a search.

The Supreme Court is quite familiar with the topic of student drug testing,
having ruled in 1995 that middle school and high school athletes can be
required to submit, without suspicion, to drug tests as a condition of
athletic participation, despite the fact that there is little evidence that
student athletes are more prone to drug use than their non-athletic peers.

That 1995 ruling allowed an exception to the rule that authorities must
have a specific reason to suspect someone of unlawful activity before
subjecting them to a search. Athletes, the Supreme Court decided, uniquely
waive their privacy expectations by agreeing to other invasions of privacy
such as shared dressing rooms and physical exams.

Other districts have been quick to jump on the mandatory drug-testing
bandwagon, revealing a disturbing trend toward increased control and
conformity as a matter of policy in schools. More and more students are
being forced to surrender body fluids as a matter of course. In Lockney,
Texas, all junior and senior high school students were required to take a
mandatory drug test. Refusal by a parent or student drew the same
punishment as failure to pass the test, an in-school suspension for first
offenders. The policy has since been modified to put only extracurricular
activities at issue as a way to pass legal review.

In Easton, Md., 18 students were required to provide urine specimens based
on rumors that they had attended a party where drugs were used, and a high
school in Alabama regularly tests its student athletes to determine if they
are smoking cigarettes.

We would never condone government officials going through our
neighborhoods, knocking on our doors and demanding urine samples in order
to test for drugs, but this indiscriminate approach is sanctioned in our
schools, where students are minors and schools have sufficient latitude in
limiting their freedom "for their own benefit."

School officials reason that they have a responsibility for the safety of
the students under their watch and contend that the primary reason for drug
testing is to eliminate the use of drugs and create a safer school
environment. To many parents who feel helpless to prevent their children
from using drugs, the drug test is a necessary tool to provide students
with a reason to resist peer pressure to drink or do drugs. The debate over
constitutional rights seems secondary to them.

The presumption of guilt created by this kind of policy flies in the face
of the "Pledge of Allegiance" many students recite each morning. Their
sense of liberty and what that means is offended each time they are asked
to provide a urine sample without any cause to suspect that they are using
drugs. Random drug testing presumes all students are criminals guilty of
drug use until they can prove their innocence by producing a clear urine
sample.

Whatever small gain drug testing might offer in the war against drugs, it
is not worth the loss of privacy, freedom and dignity. What a bleak future
it will be for our students if they come to associate their education with
a government that suspects them, without reason, and invades their privacy
without cause.