Linn State Technical College in Missouri recently instituted a drug-testing program ordering all incoming freshmen and returning students to submit urine samples to be screened for a variety of substances including marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine. While no legal action will be taken if a student tests positive after an initial screening, he or she will remain on probation for the duration of the semester and will be required to submit a follow-up sample and take an online drug-prevention course. They will have to pass a second drug test 45 days later to stay enrolled in the school.

I can almost understand the importance of monitoring individuals who are actually suspected of contributing to terrorist organizations or being involved in other modes of crime. If there is prior suspicion and just cause to review someone's phone records, law enforcement has every right to legally obtain a warrant to conduct a thorough investigation.

However, mandating an entire student body to acquiesce to drug testing is unconstitutional. According to a complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union, there is "no special need for drug testing its students that is sufficient to outweigh the students' individual privacy."

Representatives from the small 2-year vocational school say the purpose of the program is to simulate a real-world environment where drug testing may be required for work. The school tries to further justify its actions by claiming that through this program they are ensuring the safety of the student body. According to Linn State, most of the coursework at the vocational college includes dangerous assignments involving nuclear technology, aircraft repairs and heavy machinery maintenance. Presumably this drug-free workplace will decrease accidents, though the college has not produced any research citing substance abuse as a rampant problem that has greatly contributed to accidents on campus.

While this reasoning makes sense, Linn State has not explained what prompted the program, such as an accident involving substance abuse. The school is deliberately invading the privacy of their students based on the fear that someone may theoretically take a substance and then operate machinery. If this is indeed a real issue, I implore the college to compile data showing the frequency of accidents caused by drugs—if there have been any—supporting its reasoning behind this drastic program.

The fundamental problem I find with this reasoning is that the school won't be conducting random drug tests. There is one initial drug test at the beginning of the school year, and students who pass the test the first time will never be asked to take the test again. Without the threat of additional tests, the students have no incentive to remain drug-free, voiding the safe environment the school is aiming for.

Perhaps the only palatable component of this program is that it prepares students for future work environments where drug testing may or may not be required. Though this is certainly an admirable mission for the small vocational school, is it necessary to coddle students into the real world? Only the experience of interacting in an actual work environment and understanding the demands of an employer will help the student properly transition into the real world. If they choose to abuse substances knowing they may be drug tested, it's a lifestyle choice they will suffer for.

While in our college bubble there's a level of detachment from the responsibilities of society, the real world unapologetically requires us to be held accountable for our actions. In this respect, training students to be prepared for drug tests is an ineffective tool for students because it doesn't simulate a real work environment; the students are given notice prior to the drug test and are not held legally accountable if they test positive for a substance.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the institution's reasoning behind the program, implementation of just one test without cause is unconstitutional and an infringement of the students' privacy.

Specifically, the mandate violates the Fourth Amendment, which condemns "unreasonable search and seizures without probable cause." Whether the school is searching through someone's book bag or his body, if they don't have reason to suspect drug use from the entirety of its student body, the college is in violation of the constitution.

While there are genuine reasons to enforce drug testing for certain individuals, issuing a blanket mandate for an entire college is excessive and unprecedented. It's possible for the college to realistically create a safe, healthy and productive environment that does not so incredulously encroach on their students' rights and privacy. Even limiting the drug testing to the individuals who are known to be using heavy machinery, nuclear technology or other tasks classified as "dangerous" would be a better compromise than testing everyone attending the college. There are several other programs at the school—such as physical therapy, computer programming and electronic engineering—that do not exhibit the safety concerns that repairing a large engine might.

Recently a federal judge suspended the program, following a lawsuit by the ACLU in conjunction with six dissenting students from Linn State. The lawsuit cites the program in violation of the fourth amendment, as the students are submitting to a drug test without "individualized suspicion."

The absence of just cause has turned a program with a fairly benevolent purpose into a baseless crusade to create a drug-free environment that sacrifices privacy.