Drug testing defies civil rights
by Daniel Silverman
Forum | 4/23/02
Posted online at 2:56 AM EST on 4/23/02
/ Last updated at 7:57 PM EST on 4/23/02
In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled public school students who take part in athletics may be randomly screened for drugs by the school district. The case centered on the town of Vernonia, Ore., whose public high school was witness to what authorities called a "substantial drug problem," a problem of which athletes were allegedly at the center.
Fast forward seven years, and move from the football field to the choir room - this is where we are today. It seems very likely after hearing arguments on March 19 that the Supreme Court will substantially broaden its previous ruling, allowing school districts to randomly screen any student who "voluntarily" takes part in any extracurricular activity, such as student government, band, theater, quiz bowl, or even the Future Homemakers of America.
Public schools must, "(try) to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Antonin Scalia quoted in the New York Times. Part of responsibility is understanding government and the limits thereof. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that any federally mandated drug tests violate a citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Doesn't that rule apply in this case? Not according to Scalia, who does not find the provision to hold when applied to minors, i.e. "non-citizens."
"So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to rule?" Scalia pointedly asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney. The American system of justice is based on a notion of trust. That is why we do not live in a totalitarian police state; that is why we are given privacy. The government must trust us to know what is best for ourselves, and must only intervene when the danger is to the greater society. So, Justice Scalia, my answer is yes.
If the Supreme Court rules, as it is predicted to do, that any student who takes part in an extracurricular activity may be subjected to drug tests, then the Brandeis admissions policy must be changed. If a student chooses to fight this gross infringement of rights by refusing to take part in school-sponsored extracurricular activities, she should be given no lesser status in terms of admissions then a student who is president of five high school clubs.
Fast forward seven years, and move from the football field to the choir room - this is where we are today. It seems very likely after hearing arguments on March 19 that the Supreme Court will substantially broaden its previous ruling, allowing school districts to randomly screen any student who "voluntarily" takes part in any extracurricular activity, such as student government, band, theater, quiz bowl, or even the Future Homemakers of America.
Public schools must, "(try) to train and raise these young people to be responsible adults," Justice Antonin Scalia quoted in the New York Times. Part of responsibility is understanding government and the limits thereof. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that any federally mandated drug tests violate a citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Doesn't that rule apply in this case? Not according to Scalia, who does not find the provision to hold when applied to minors, i.e. "non-citizens."
"So long as you have a bunch of druggies who are orderly in class, the school can take no action. That's what you want us to rule?" Scalia pointedly asked the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney. The American system of justice is based on a notion of trust. That is why we do not live in a totalitarian police state; that is why we are given privacy. The government must trust us to know what is best for ourselves, and must only intervene when the danger is to the greater society. So, Justice Scalia, my answer is yes.
If the Supreme Court rules, as it is predicted to do, that any student who takes part in an extracurricular activity may be subjected to drug tests, then the Brandeis admissions policy must be changed. If a student chooses to fight this gross infringement of rights by refusing to take part in school-sponsored extracurricular activities, she should be given no lesser status in terms of admissions then a student who is president of five high school clubs.
Be the first to comment on this story