Random Student Drug Testing: Here we Go Again

The trend toward random drug testing in schools lost momentum in 2000 when the Indiana Appeals Court ruled that testing without probable cause violated the Indiana state Constitution. Subsequently, both the Indiana and US Supreme Courts have ruled that such testing is legal under the state and federal constitutions, respectively.

Since this issue was last heard from locally in 2000, the privacy and other rights of Americans have been under continual assault. The terror attacks with hijacked planes, anthrax in the mail and snipers on the streets have prompted Congress to pass unprecedented privacy-violating laws such as the "Patriot" Act. Airline passengers are subject to increasingly intrusive searches, though not individually suspected of any crime. Polls say that most Americans, in hopes of preventing terrorism, are willing to sacrifice even more of their liberties. We can be sure that Congress will take advantage of this whenever we have another big terror attack.

One might hope that, in such an atmosphere, people would hesitate to add further pressure on privacy rights where terror is not an issue; but that would be a vain hope. The Lawrenceburg school district is now the latest to be discussing a random drug testing policy.

Drug abuse is undeniably a scourge of our society. It usually starts at a young age, while children are still in school, so the best prevention efforts will focus primarily on that age. Random drug testing is one such attempt. Proponents of such testing believe that the continual threat of exposure will inhibit drug abuse by students. That may be true; but many people object to this approach, saying it violates the right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The courts have answered constitutional and civil libertarian objections by claiming that stopping drug abuse is more important than students' right to privacy. Anyway, they argue, students have a "diminished expectation of privacy," so it shouldn't bother them to be tested. Right or wrong, these arguments have prevailed in the courts, and schools need have no fear of litigation if they decide to set up their own random testing programs.

I believe that the court rulings are wrong. Anyone who can read should be able to see that the Fourth Amendment prohibits searching anyone's person without a search warrant showing probable cause that the search will reveal evidence of a crime. Obviously the opinions of the Supreme Court trump mine in any legal proceedings. But we need to consider whether being allowed by the courts to do something means that we should go ahead and do it.

There are two issues to consider. First, if we can see that the courts have twisted the Constitution in their decisions, do we want to compound the error by institutionalizing the offense against the Fourth Amendment? If we are willing to give up one provision of the Constitution, especially of the Bill of Rights, aren't all such provisions in danger? Let's obey our fundamental law, whether or not the Supreme Court allows us to flout it.

The other issue is the message we send to our children when we make light of their rights. If they don't already have diminished expectations that their rights will be respected, they surely will after being subjected to random drug testing. Growing up in a society that expediently discards God- given rights to solve social problems, as adults they will be more likely to go along with attacks on other rights guaranteed in the Constitution. And many legislators and judges will be ready and waiting to take advantage of that.

The people in the Lawrenceburg school district should pass up the opportunity to give their children this object lesson in submission to illegitimate government authority.