TESTING THE LIMITS OF PRIVACY

Where does one draw the line? How far into students' privacy will
administrators delve? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that
publicly schooled students are exempt from its protections and guarantees?

The issue of mandatory drug testing raises these perplexing questions, and
many districts are anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on its
legality, which likely will not be announced until this summer.

Hopefully, the court will not extend 1995's 6-3 decision it issued
declaring mandatory drug testing for athletes legal to include students in
any extracurricular activity.

The justices may as well justify mandatory drug tests for anyone enrolled
in school because such a high proportion of students involve themselves in
at least one, if not more, extracurricular activity.

Nearby districts, including Azle, Aledo, Burleson and Joshua, require
mandatory drug testing for students in any extracurricular activity.

One reason larger school districts, such as Fort Worth, have not
implemented a similar policy is a tight budget.

The districts are - or should be, in cases such as Tecumseh, Okla., where
the burden currently falls to students, according to the American Civil
Liberties Union - responsible for covering all drug test expenses.

Moreover, it is in these larger districts with a high component of
inner-city students with inner-city problems that drug use is more likely
to pose a significant problem but that are least likely to have the funds
necessary for the testing, let alone a support or rehabilitation program.

Without some type of assistance program, a positive drug test would hurl a
student further into the "drug culture" that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
expressed contempt for.

To expel students from their choice extracurricular activities - in many
cases a passion for art, debate or sports - leaves them out on the streets
after school instead of in a controlled environment. This only worsens the
problems presented by the drug world.

School provides a place of refuge, a haven where any student should be
welcomed and encouraged to pursue positive influences and experiences.

Conservative justices want to keep "the druggies" out of school, but this
viewpoint exposes their naivete of the situation. The justices should want
to keep them in school where administrators, teachers and extracurricular
programs can guide the students to a less destructive and more productive path.

Justice Stephen Breyer compared using metal detectors for the purpose of
keeping guns off campus to random drug testing by emphasizing that in
neither case is there individualized suspicion.

The difference is that a student with a deadly weapon poses a threat to
everyone else in the building, but a student on drugs generally only poses
a threat to his or her personal well-being.

To require students to walk through metal detectors is to protect the lives
of others, but to require random drug testing is to overstep the right to
privacy.

If random drug testing crosses the line, what about testing in a situation
where reasonable suspicion of drug use exists?

This, too, would fail to mitigate the gravity of the implications of
testing concerning a student's right to privacy. Furthermore, such action
would require unwavering trust in the administration's opinion in each
case. It is both unreasonable and improbable that a majority of students
would trust staff members to make unbiased decisions regarding who's next
to be subjected to providing a urine sample.

The court's 1995 opinion on drug testing for athletes was based heavily on
the fact that engaging in strenuous activity while under the influence of
illegal substances can cause deleterious effects and even death.

Though the tests remain an invasion of privacy, this point is at least
justifiable. What, though, is potentially dangerous about an
extracurricular activity not involving great physical exertion?

Nothing. There is no justification for randomly testing a student devoting
time to a respectable activity.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to privacy, yet it has a history
of failing to uphold students' privacy rights. This is its opportunity to
break away from precedent and prove that it doles out justice rather than
supporting infringement into the personal lives of citizens.