recent news articles on the June 2002 Supreme Court decision about schools and drug testing.

Court to Weigh Drug Testing by Schools.

 Justices to Decide if Choir, Club Members' Privacy, Like Athletes', May Be Breached

                   By Charles Lane
                   Washington Post Staff Writer
                   Sunday, March 17, 2002; Page A10

                   Lindsey Earls remembers vividly the day in the fall of 1998 when a
                   teacher called her and several other students out of choir class
                   at Tecumseh High School in rural Oklahoma and told them it was
                   time to take a drug test.

                   The girls went to a restroom and urinated in cups while teachers
                   stood outside the stalls listening for sounds of cheating. Afterward,
                   the teachers examined each cup to make sure it contained a liquid of
                   the requisite color and temperature.

                   "It was really awkward," Earls, now a first-year student at Dartmouth
                   College, said in an interview. "The potential that four or five kids may
                   use drugs is not a good enough reason to invade the privacy of all
                   the other kids."

                   Earls was found drug-free, but she felt the experience was so
                   unpleasant that she and her parents contacted the American
                   Civil Liberties Union. Aided by ACLU lawyers, they launched a
                   federal lawsuit in 1999, saying the Constitution prohibits the local
                   school board's policy of requiring random drug testing of all
                   students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities
                   such as choir and Future Farmers of America.

                   On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case, which has turned
                   into a major battle about the degree to which the war on drugs should take precedence
                   over student privacy concerns.

                   The court's decision in the case will provide crucial guidance to public school systems
                   across the country contemplating whether to implement policies like Tecumseh's. Given
                   the importance of extracurricular activities to students' college applications, the
                   implications are potentially significant to many American families.

                   School officials in Tecumseh, supported by friend-of-the-court briefs from a wide array
                   of anti-drug organizations, school boards and the Bush administration, say the policy is
                   a minor intrusion on student privacy intended to deter drug use, not punish it. They
                   say the program is justified by the threat to health and safety posed by illegal drugs.

                   "This school district developed its policy out of care and concern for its students," said
                   William H. Bleakley, a lawyer for the Tecumseh school district.

                   But opponents of the policy, including not only the ACLU, but also such groups as the
                   American Academy of Pediatrics and the libertarian Cato Institute, which have filed
                   friend-of-the-court briefs on Earls's behalf, say that students in choir and the like are
                   already drug-free, and that, if anything, the prospect of a drug test actually might drive
                   some students away from supervised after-school activities that help them resist
                   drugs.

                   "The single best way to prevent drug use is to get students into choir and band and
                   the rest," said Graham A. Boyd, the ACLU-affiliated attorney who will argue Earls's case
                   before the court. "The last thing you want to do is set up barriers to that."

                   At the heart of the legal issues in the case is a 1995 Supreme Court ruling that
                   authorized public high schools to require student-athletes to take random drug tests
                   as a condition of playing on teams.

                   The court reasoned that there was substantial evidence of a major drug problem in the
                   school in question -- to which football players and others were contributing heavily.
                   Also, the court held that athletes have less expectation of privacy because they already
                   consent to disrobing in locker rooms and showering together.

                   As a result, the court held, there could be an exception to the usual constitutional
                   requirement for a search warrant.

                   In the Lindsay Earls case, a federal district court agreed with the school district that the
                   1995 Supreme Court ruling could apply to nonathletic activities. But a year ago, the
                   Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the district court 2 to
                   1. School authorities had not shown enough evidence that drug use by participants in
                   nonathletic activities was a major problem, the court held.

                   The 10th Circuit's divided ruling added to a conflict among lower courts, and the
                   Supreme Court agreed to sort it out by hearing the school district's appeal.

                   Tecumseh school authorities point to the fact that students who participate in
                   extracurricular activities also voluntarily surrender much of their privacy, for instance,
                   when they travel to out-of-town singing competitions and must sleep in crowded
                   dormitory rooms.

                   The school authorities argue in their brief that even Future Farmers of America could be
                   put at risk by drugs if the students use them during animal shows where they have to
                   keep control over animals weighing hundreds of pounds.

                   School authorities note that police are never notified of positive test results.

                   The ACLU counters that the health risks are not nearly comparable to those that drug
                   use adds to contact sports such as football.

                   Indeed, the ACLU vigorously disputes the school district's portrayal of Tecumseh as a
                   community where parents and teachers report that marijuana use has grown despite
                   the measures -- including surveillance cameras and drug-sniffing dogs -- that are
                   already in place at the schools.

                   "The kind of unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence of drug use that the district puts forth
                   in support of a special need for drug testing could be conjured from the halls of every
                   high school in America," the ACLU says in its brief.

                   In its friend-of-the court brief supporting the school district, the National School
                   Boards Association says that "many" of the nation's 14,700 school systems adopted
                   drug testing in some form after the 1995 Supreme Court case.

                   Testing has not become the norm, however, partly because of the lingering legal
                   uncertainty over how far that rule applies, the association said.

                   "When the court signs off on a form of drug-testing, it plants a seed in school boards
                   that might have not otherwise considered it," said Boyd, the ACLU-affiliated lawyer.

                                        © 2002 The Washington Post Company

Court to consider school drug-testing: Students sued after Okla. district required urine tests for extracurricular activities.

                 By Joan Biskupic
                 USA TODAY

                 WASHINGTON -- One of the most pressing questions for parents
                 and educators comes before the U.S. Supreme Court today as
                 the justices consider how far schools can go in trying to keep
                 students off of drugs.

                 An Oklahoma school district is defending a policy of random urine
                 testing for high school students who want to join the marching
                 band, academic team or any competitive extracurricular activity.

                 The students and parents who object, represented by the
                 American Civil Liberties Union, say testing those who have done
                 nothing to arouse suspicion is unconstitutional and can backfire.

                 ''I don't think stripping students of their privacy rights is any way
                 to solve the problem,'' says Lindsay Earls, who with her sister
                 and another student challenged the urinalysis testing in the
                 Pottawatomie County school district, 40 miles southeast of
                 Oklahoma City.

                 With illegal drug use prevalent across America, the case has
                 drawn wide interest from teachers, parents and social workers.
                 Many of them disagree over whether testing is an effective way to
                 keep students from using narcotics.

                 The justices' eventual ruling will have ramifications for the most
                 aggressive anti-drug efforts in schools today and likely influence
                 the legitimacy of other government-sponsored urine testing down
                 the line.

                 The Bush administration's Justice Department is siding with the
                 school district. In a brief to the high court, Justice Department
                 lawyers refer to a 2000 national survey in which 54% of
                 12th-graders and 46% of 10th-graders said they had used illegal
                 drugs.

                 ''Schoolchildren not only are more vulnerable to drug use than
                 adults, but such abuse is much more likely to devastate their
                 lives,'' U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson says in the brief.

                 But the question in oral arguments today is whether such
                 broad-based testing, covering all students in interscholastic
                 extracurricular activities, violates the Fourth Amendment
                 protection against unreasonable searches.

                 In previous cases, the Supreme Court has said the collection and
                 testing of urine is a type of search that under usual
                 circumstances would require a warrant or some evidence of
                 wrongdoing.

                 But the justices also have ruled that administrators generally
                 have more leeway to search in the school setting, based on the
                 assumption that students expect less privacy than adults do.

                 In a case in 1995, the court specifically allowed urinalysis for
                 student athletes. In that case from Vernonia, Ore., the high court
                 cited the safety concerns involved in athletics and noted that
                 athletes usually undress together and have lower expectations of
                 privacy.

                 Now the question is whether schools can justify testing
                 non-athletes, particularly those with no documented drug
                 problems.

                 The Pottawatomie County School Board began requiring students
                 who wanted to participate in interscholastic competitions to
                 undergo random urinalysis testing in 1998. Each month, a
                 teacher would accompany students into a bathroom and wait
                 outside the stall to try to guard against cheating.

                 Earls, then a sophomore at Tecumseh High, submitted to the
                 tests in order to continue participating in the school's choir and
                 academic team. In a recent interview, she said it was ''humiliating''
                 to urinate as a teacher listened outside the stall. ''We all tried to
                 make jokes about it to feel more comfortable,'' she said.

                 Her tests were negative. Earls says she has never used drugs.
                 Even so, she and her parents decided to challenge the policy
                 because of the personal liberties at stake. ''It's nobody's business
                 but my parents' if I'm doing drugs,'' says Earls, 19, now a
                 freshman at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.

                 A trial judge sided with the school district, citing students'
                 presumed lower expectation of privacy. The judge said the
                 collection of the urine minimally affects them. But the U.S. Court
                 of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed that ruling. Referring to
                 the 1995 Oregon case, the appeals court said athletes face a
                 higher risk of injury from drug use than others and concluded
                 that testing could be used only if ''there is some identifiable drug
                 abuse problem'' to screen for.

                 The Pottawatomie County school district says students who take
                 part in non-athletic competitions ''voluntarily choose to abide by
                 heightened regulations'' and automatically ''submit to additional
                 privacy intrusions.''

                 School officials say the need to eliminate drug use outweighs
                 privacy interests. William Bleakley, an attorney for the district,
                 says officials see testing as a ''caring approach'' that gets
                 students into counseling if they need it.

                 ACLU lawyer Graham Boyd, representing the students, counters
                 that there is no justification for testing non-athletes who have no
                 history of drug use or discipline problems and who do not engage
                 in dangerous sports.

                 He says that participating in choir, band and similar activities can
                 help keep kids off drugs and that schools should not discourage
                 such pursuits.

from the Associated Press:

Youth Split on School Drug Testing
  Fri Jun 28, 3:48 PM ET

  By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer

  One 16-year-old declared random drug testing a violation of
  his rights. Another teenager said it would help users face up
  to their problems.

  Young Americans seem as divided over drug testing as the Supreme Court,
  which ruled 5-4 in favor of the practice for students who take part in
  after-school activities.

  The ruling, handed down Thursday, could affect more than half of the
  estimated 14 million American high school students, including
  those in everything from chess clubs to choirs.

  Shawn Ligocki, a 16-year-old from Pinole, Calif., says he'll be
  upset if his high school decides to start testing — he doesn't
  think drugs are widely used enough to pose problems. But
  Ligocki, who camps and does other outdoor activities with a
  school club, also objects on principle.

  "It's not really their right to be testing," Ligocki says, echoing
  the oft-heard argument that random tests violate the
  Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches.

  Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a group that opposes
  punitive drug laws, also was disappointed with the decision.

  Shawn Heller, a recent college graduate and the group's
  national director, said the ruling could discourage students
  from participating in after-school programs — which are a
  good way to keep young people from taking drugs in the
  first place.

  "Being part of the band or the student newspaper gives a kid
  something to do," he said.

  Marnie Wolfe, a recent graduate from a high school in
  Tacoma, Wash., is among those who disagree. She thinks
  random tests may provide a needed wake-up call for her
  many peers who use marijuana and other drugs such as
  cocaine and Ecstasy.

  "It's an awakening to the real world ( news - Y! TV) that you have responsibilities," says Wolfe,
  who will attend Dartmouth College this fall. "I think that it's better if it's caught now, and
  you face the consequences when you have a better support system at home."

  Matt Malinowski, of Wyncote, Pa., says that random drug tests are "a harsh way to deal with the issue."
  But Malinowski, 17, who wrestles, plays volleyball and serves in his high school's student government,
  would submit to testing because "I personally don't do drugs, so I have nothing to hide."

  Rebecca MacEachen, a 16-year-old from Red Hook, N.Y., says drug testing is none of
  schools' business. If a teenager has a drug problem, MacEachen says, "I don't think
  the school should be intervening. I think it's up to the parents."

  And at least one pediatrician who deals with high schools calls random drug testing
  "our excuse for not doing the job right."

  "To me, the thing is building a relationship with a kid," says Dr. Charles Shubin, who
  keeps his own practice and also serves as a doctor at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, a
  public high school. "What I gather is that school districts (that test) don't think they
  can do that."

  Drug tests had been allowed previously just for student athletes.

  But in Thursday's decision, the court ruled against a former Oklahoma high school
  honor student who competed on an academic quiz team and sang in the choir.

  "We find that testing students who participate in extracurricular activities is a
  reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in
  preventing, deterring and detecting drug use," Justice Clarence Thomas ( news - web
  sites) wrote for the court majority.

  The court stopped short of allowing random tests for any student, though several
  justices have indicated they are interested in answering that question at some point.

  ___

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/28/MN44614.DTL

                  Supreme Court broadens drug testing in schools -- Bay Area districts demur
                  THE REACTION: Local school administrators reluctant to take on
                  duties as enforcers

                  Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer
                  Friday, June 28, 2002
 

                  Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized random drug
                  tests at school, don't expect Principal Vince Rhea to show up at
                  Crespi Middle School in El Sobrante this fall with a box of paper
                  cups under his arm.

                  "I'm going to pass on this one," he said. "We're administrators,
                  not police. "

                  Rhea's sentiments were echoed by school officials throughout
                  the Bay Area as word spread Thursday of the ruling that
                  expands random testing to include students in extracurricular
                  groups as well as athletes.

                  Educators estimate that more than half of the nation's 14 million
                  high schoolers now qualify for spot checks -- those who put in
                  extra time blowing the tuba, DJ'ing for school radio, raising pigs
                  for Future Farmers of America, debating foreign policy for the
                  forensics team or snapping photos for the yearbook. Even
                  cheerleaders are on the list.

                  It's up to principals and superintendents to decide whether they
                  want to start drug testing.

                  "The court is going after the wrong folks," said Oakland schools
                  Superintendent Dennis Chaconas, who pointed to studies
                  linking lower drug use among students who keep themselves
                  busy with extra work.

                  "This district is not going to take a guilty until proven innocent
                  stance -- no way," he said.

                  If students learn that only the extracurricular students get the
                  tests, they may not join in the first place, he said.

                  LAWSUITS FROM PARENTS FEARED

                  Rhea worried that no matter how randomly the school tried to
                  conduct the tests, a parent could claim the school was
                  targeting their child, which could lead to lawsuits.

                  "We already do a good job of talking to the parents privately,
                  and referring kids to county services or pediatricians at Kaiser,"
                  he said. "It's not like we don't get involved when a student has
                  a drug problem."

                  Students, however, were more resigned to the possibility of
                  surprise urine checks.

                  "I have no problem with it because I don't do drugs," said David
                  Wasserman, a champion debater from Emery High in Emeryville.
                  "But really, I'd like to know what kind of performance-enhancing
                  drug I could take to debate better.

                  "If you have something to hide, then you should be afraid of it,"
                  he said. "But I don't believe it violates my privacy because as a
                  student at a school, they do have a certain jurisdiction over  you."

                  Wasserman questioned the logic of testing superachievers like
                  himself for drugs.

                  "I don't think the evil crack heads are lurking around the podium,
                  debating foreign policy," he said.

                  Basketball player Demetrius Arnold of Omega High in Richmond
                  would accept drug testing of students, but only if there were a
                  really good reason and if all students were tested.

                  "I'd say I see someone at school who is on drugs about three
                  times a week, and it is a problem," Arnold said. "This might
                  reduce the number of kids who show up to school on drugs."

                  But the bigger drug problem is among the students who never
                  make it to campus or who leave school to nurse their habit, he
                  said.

                  "I don't think the students who stay at school are the ones with
                  the drug problems," he said.

                  SOME SCHOOLS ALREADY DO TESTS

                  A few Bay Area students already undergo routine drug tests,
                  at Phoenix Academy charter school in San Rafael -- formerly
                  known as Sobriety High.

                  Students who are trying to get sober sign a contract with the
                  school and their parents, agreeing to the random drug tests,
                  12-step classes and therapy.

                  "In this kind of school, the drug test is one more thing that helps
                  a young person think twice before taking drugs," said Marin
                  County schools Superintendent Mary Jane Burke.

                  "But in a regular school setting, it won't work in isolation," she
                  said. "Youth drug abuse is a community problem, and without
                  intervention and prevention programs, random drug testing falls
                  far short of what young people need."

                  Cindy Martinez, who will be a senior at Richmond High in the
                  fall, said she supports drug testing to make schools safer but
                  would feel degraded if she had to give a sample to a school
                  administrator.

                  "Especially if you aren't doing anything wrong," she said.

                  Results of any student drug tests would be kept in a
                  confidential file and not turned over to authorities, according to
                  the ruling.

                  From inside the radio studio at KECG at El Cerrito High,
                  programming teacher Corey Mason said the ruling sounded like
                  a "glaring incursion into civil liberties."

                  El Cerrito High student Jasmine Robinson, 17, said the court is
                  pushing the schools into the role of parent.

                  "Why is this now their business?" she said. "Their job is to
                  teach, not poke into our private life. They are getting too
                  involved with us -- in the wrong way."
 

                  ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.   Page A - 1