HIGH COURT PONDERS DRUG TESTS

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether schools
may give drug tests to nearly any student involved in after-school
activities, from the chess club to cheerleading, without evidence the
student or the school has a drug problem.

Critics say such broad testing is unconstitutional and a step toward
universal screening. Supporters say it is necessary in the face of drug use
by young people. "I felt they were accusing us and convicting us before
they had given us a chance," said Lindsey Earls, who sang in her high
school choir and participated on an academic quiz team when testing began
in Tecumseh, Okla.

Only children involved in competitive extracurricular activities were
tested on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, they had
opened themselves to greater scrutiny than other students.

"The board did perceive that there was a drug problem among the students
and wanted to help E give students a reason to say no," said Stephanie
Mather, a lawyer for the school. "It was a deterrent. A student could say,
'I want to participate in this band competition, so I'm not going to do
that.' "

The Supreme Court ruling, expected by summer, could answer a question
lingering from a major 1995 case, when the court said a school with a
pervasive drug problem could subject student athletes to drug tests.

In that 6-3 decision, the court did not address schoolwide testing or
extracurricular activities apart from athletics. It is not clear whether an
answer in this case would apply to all extracurricular activities or only
to competitive pursuits.

The National School Boards Association has no estimate for the number of
children involved in extracurricular activities nationally, but the
Oklahoma school said it assumed its policy would cover a large percentage
of students.

The case involves a decision by the Board of Education in rural Tecumseh,
40 miles from Oklahoma City, to begin "suspicionless" drug testing in the
fall of 1998.

The board had considered testing all students in the School District but
settled for the smaller program in light of previous court challenges
elsewhere. The school acknowledges that students involved in such
activities as band and the pompom team are not more likely than others to
be involved with drugs and has said there was no severe drug problem in the
school.

"It was not where the problem was, but where they thought they could, in
essence, legally get away with doing the testing," said Graham Boyd, the
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer handling the case.

Earls was given a urine test in 1999. The test came back negative, and she
and her family sued.

"It was horrible. Someone would stand outside the bathroom stall and
listen," said Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth.

A federal appeals court ruled earlier this year that the tests violated the
Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

The case turns on whether schools have to prove the existence of narcotics
problems before testing children and if testing is appropriate only for
students involved in potentially dangerous activities, such as sports or
students who voluntarily have given up some expectations of privacy.