Two reports on issue from Current Events:

   Source:  Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, Oct 24, 1997 v97 n7
            p3(1).

    Title:  Drug tests for students? (random drug testing on high school
            students in Dade County, Florida)
 

Electronic Collection:  A20035247
                   RN:  A20035247
 

Full Text COPYRIGHT 1997 Weekly Reader Corp.

Despite claims that Dade County, Florida's new random drug testing policy is
unconstitutional, school officials are confident that their policy will stand.
Proponents of the plan point to a 1995 Supreme Court case as a precedent in
allowing random drug tests.

In 1989, a Veronia, Oregon school implemented a random drug testing policy for
student athletes. The school was challenged and a court battle ensued.

Finally, in a June, 1995 decision, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow the
school to randomly drug test student athletes. Writing in support of the
decision, Justice Anton Scalia compared the school environment to a form of
"temporary custody." He explained that the tests were permissible because of
the school's serious drug problem and because children, especially student
athletes, are entitled to less protection under the 4th amendment than adults
are.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing in dissent, voiced the objections of
those against random drug testing. "By the reasoning of today's decision, the
millions of...students who participate in inter-scholastic sports, an
overwhelming majority of whom have given school officials no reason whatsoever
to suspect they use drugs at school, are open to an intrusive bodily search."

The decision went further than a 1985 decision in which the Supreme Court
ruled that student lockers could be searched by school officials. In that
judgment, however, searches were only allowed if the school officials had some
reasonable reason to suspect the student. (For example, an under age student's
locker could be searched for cigarettes if they were caught smoking.)

In contrast to its rulings on children, the U.S. court system has only allowed
the government to give drug tests to adults if government officials can offer
some proof that a drug test will come up positive. They have made exceptions
to this rule, however, in allowing random drug testing to train employees
involved in crashes, and other positions which have a great effect on public
safety.

The Dade County drug policy is has yet to be challenged in court. Speculation
on the outcome is widely divided.

RELATED ARTICLE: Drug Tests for Students?

Julia Juarez is a good student. She does her homework, plays on the JV soccer
team, and treats others with respect. So why does she have to take a drug
test?

The Dade County (Fla.) school district has approved random drug testing of its
high-school students. Now, with permission from a student's parents, the
school will be able to ask the student to take a drug test at any time.

Unfair to Students

Ben Waxman of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) called the drug tests
an "invasion of privacy." Opponents of random drug tests say that the school
district's policy is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. That amendment protects people from "unreasonable searches."
Opponents believe the drug tests are unreasonable because they can be done on
any student whose parent has given consent, not just on those students
suspected of drug use.

Opponents argue that drug testing, if used, should be conducted only if there
is evidence that a student is using drugs.

Educating students about the dangers of drugs, opponents say, is a better way
to fight drug use.

A Fight Against Drugs

Drug use, say supporters of random drug tests, is a big problem among today's
kids. They argue that the tests will discourage some kids from trying drugs
and will help parents to find help for those kids already doing drugs.

Supporters also say the tests are not an invasion of a student's privacy,
because the results will be given only to that student's parents--not to
school officials. Parents, drug test supporters argue, have a right to know
whether their child is doing drugs. Renier Diaz de la Portilla of the Dade
County school board said the county's random drug testing will allow "total
parental empowerment" in the fight against drugs.

*************
 

   Source:  Current Events, a Weekly Reader publication, Dec 7, 2001 v101 i13
            p3(3).

    Title:  Put to the test: are random student drug tests fair? (News
            Debate).(Brief Article)
 

Electronic Collection:  A80744513
                   RN:  A80744513
 

Full Text COPYRIGHT 2001 Weekly Reader Corp.

ON JANUARY 12, 1999, a principal's assistant at Tecumseh (Okla.) High School
walked into choir class and announced that Lindsay Earls should report to the
school cafeteria. Earls knew why; she had been randomly chosen for a drug
test.

Other selected students gathered in the cafeteria with Earls. Officials
escorted the students to the bathroom and ordered them to provide urine
samples, which were tested for the presence of illegal drugs. Earls's test
came back from the lab negative.

School officials had no evidence that Earls or the other students had used
drugs. The school had begun random drug tests for students involved in
nonsport extracurricular activities in 1998 as a way to curb drug use. The
theory was that students would not take drugs if they thought they might be
tested.

After taking the drug test, Earls felt humiliated and decided to sue. With the
help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Earls and student Daniel James
sued the local board of education.

A federal district court decided against Earls and James, but the students
appealed that decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled in the
students' favor. The school board then appealed that decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court, which recently agreed to hear the case. The Court will likely
decide on the case sometime next year.

Unconstitutional?

Earls and James claim that random drug testing violates the U.S.
Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from "unreasonable
searches and seizures." Under the amendment, law enforcement officials must
show "probable cause" for a search. The students say the policy is
unreasonable because students are tested whether or not they are suspected of
using drugs. Earls said, "I'm not suspected of drug use.... So why should I
have to take this test?"

The appeals court ruled that schools must show there is a drug-abuse problem
among students who are tested. "Otherwise," the court noted, "there is no
limit.... Schools could test all of their students simply as a condition of
attending school."

Defending a Policy

The school voluntarily suspended random testing until the case is resolved.
School district officials, however, maintain that the policy can deter
students from using drugs. Linda Meoli, a lawyer for the Tecumseh school
district, added, "Public schools in the nation ... are responsible for the
safety of the students under their supervision on a daily basis and must
address drug use which threatens their safety."

Gene Cmkovic, a parent of two Tecumseh students, supports the school's
drug-testing policy. "If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem,"
Cmkovic said.
 
 
 

                                -- End --

back to CLASS MATERIALS