Ian Eisner
Click Here for more articles by Ian Eisner Â
In yet another misguided attempt to turn the tide of the United
States’ mostly ineffectual war on drugs, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled recently that high school students participating in
extracurricular activities could be singled out for random drug
testing. However, in an illogical distinction, their non-involved
counterparts would not be subjected to any such tests.
The case, which made its way to the Supreme Court after an honor
roll student singing in the Tecumseh High School choir felt her
rights were violated when forced to take a urine test (which she
passed), significantly expands the drug-testing criteria to include
not only student athletes but students participating in any kind of
school-related activity. Already dealing with a tenuous link
between recreational drug use and sports-related injury, the
Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Education v. Earls
effectively stretched the standard of applicability to potentially
include an additional 24 million students involved in
extra-scholastic activities.
Heralded by some anti-drug crusaders as a stinging blow against
substance abuse, Americans are left to sleep easy knowing the array
of drug problems accompanying chess and math team members will be
eradicated via the random urine test.
This, of course, is a false sense of security less apt than the
phrase “Just Say No.” Drug testing as a price for
participation in extracurriculars flunks the logic test because
students involved in these activities are the least likely group to
use drugs. In the Tecumseh High case, over 500 students were tested
for drugs with only three students testing positive for illegal
drug use. In a broader study cited by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
in her dissent, 10th-graders participating in extracurricular
activities are 50 percent less likely to do drugs.
At a far greater risk for potential drug use are students not
participating in school activities. But under the current Supreme
Court-sanctioned practice, these high-risk students are excluded
from testing, leaving yearbook staffs and homemaker clubs to be
unfairly subjected to intrusive testing. Perhaps the next step is
to randomly search the lockers of students taking part in
extracurricular activities (and bypass the lockers of
non-participants).
It is a glaring double standard that will ultimately hinder the
anti-drug effort. The selective-testing movement threatens the
privacy of students least likely to do drugs, while at the same
time driving high-risk students away from extracurricular
activities, which may be the key to ameliorating drug problems.
Proponents of this brand of testing argue students “can
refuse the test by not participating in these extra-scholastic
activities.” But with studies repeatedly indicating
involvement in a team or club is one of the best combatants against
substance abuse, students should not be forced to make such a
decision. The goal should be to attract drug users to
extracurriculars, not send them running the other direction.
Like so many previous efforts in America’s war on drugs,
extracurricular drug testing falls far from the target. By
subjecting students least prone to substance abuse, the only thing
this new campaign will curb is student privacy. And for
students confronting these tests, just saying no is not an
option.