UNWARRANTED DRUG TESTS

OKLAHOMA SCHOOL officials are hooked on drug-testing students. It's up to
the Supreme Court to point out that when this habit is abused, it violates
the US Constitution.

The problem began in 1998 when Oklahoma's Tecumseh public school district
set up a policy to administer drug tests to any student participating in an
extracurricular activity - from the band to Future Farmers of America.

According to court documents, tests occurred about eight times during the
1998-99 academic year. Students were tested for amphetamines, marijuana,
cocaine, opiates, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines - but not nicotine or
alcohol.

Defenders of the policy say tests send a tough message that drugs won't be
tolerated. But such ''suspicionless searches'' violate students' Fourth
Amendment protection against unreasonable searches.

Schools can search students without probable cause as long as the search
meets the legal standard of ''reasonableness.'' In 1995, the Supreme Court
ruled that schools in Vernonia, Ore., could test athletes for drugs. But
this decision was made in response to what the court called ''special needs.''

In the Oregon case, the schools had seen a jump in drug-related discipline
problems. Students were said to be in a state of rebellion. The district
court found that athletes were leaders of the drug culture. Coaches saw
some of these athletes risk harm or injury to themselves by behavior that
was attributed to drug use. Officials tried but failed to fight the problem
with special presentations and a drug-sniffing dog. And the justices said
that school athletes already surrender some privacy by agreeing to medical
examinations and use of common locker rooms and showers.

There is no comparable threat of harm or disorder in Oklahoma. There is no
evidence that student members of the band or choir, for example, use drugs,
or harm themselves because of drug use, or encourage others to use drugs,
or undermine the authority of educators. Marching these students to the
bathroom and handing them a container is an unreasonable - hence
unconstitutional - invasion of privacy, and it is silly.

The Oklahoma policy seems to be based on fearful stereotypes of drug-
glazed adolescents, not on the evidence. In hearings last week Justice
Anthony Kennedy seemed gripped by this fear when he told the lawyer of the
family that sued the Oklahoma schools: ''No parent would send their child
to a `druggie' school, except perhaps your client.''

What these parents and their children really want is a fair school where
the Constitution holds sway. That is something the high court should defend.