Voice of the People
No sensible adult wants kids to experiment with drugs. No responsible
school administration wants kids under their responsibility to be using
drugs. I personally believe our school administration takes their
responsibility very seriously.
Our school system currently utilizes a “reasonable suspicion” based system to
determine if a student should be a candidate for drug testing. Factors such
as behavior and school performance are included and more than one school
official must be included in deciding if drug testing may be warranted.
I have heard recently that someone has suggested that Duneland return to
suspicionless testing of students. Since it is not legal to force all
students to be tested, they would require that students who wish to be in
school activities or park on school grounds sign agreement in writing to
submit to drug testing. I call that blackmail; and it is damaging to the
primary function of the school, which is to prepare our students to
understand their responsibilities and to function as citizens in our
democracy.
This is not just my opinion. In the Supreme Court decision that allowed
suspicionless testing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented saying: “When custodial
duties are not ascendant, however, school’s tutelary duties obligations to
their students require them to ‘teach by example’ by avoiding symbolic
measures that diminish Constitutional protections.”
To me, the important question is how can we best utilize our resources to
meet all our responsibilities to the kids. I question no ones concerns for
the problem, my concern is for priorities and methods. William Bailey, the
director of the Indiana Prevention Resource Center, wrote “The money is more
effectively spent on involving kids in adult sponsored after school
activities.”
The reasons the Supreme Court gave allowing suspicionless drug testing do not
say it is the best tool. Clarence Thomas wrote: “A program of individualized
suspicion might unfairly target members of unpopular groups.” But he also
said: “In upholding the constitutionality, we express no opinion as to its
wisdom.” Justice Breyer quoted Thomas’s concern and added: “I cannot know
whether the school’s drug testing program will work.”
Finally, in the Supreme Court Chandler decision prohibiting drug testing for
political candidates the court ruled: “What is left…is the image the state
seeks to project…, the need revealed is symbolic, not special.”
William Barkow
Chesterton
Â
Posted2/13/2008
Â