What lesson should our children learn from the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of widespread, random drug tests in our schools? That Americans should be happy to be subjected to demeaning searches even when they have done nothing to warrant suspicion of criminal behavior? That our schools have no better uses for their limited time and money? Or that a majority of our current justices have even less appreciation for our Fourth Amendment than the average sixth-grader picks up in civics class?

Everyone knows that illegal drugs are a serious problem in our schools, and in the rest of society. However, the problem does not justify, on either practical or constitutional grounds, the indiscriminate violation of people's privacy.

Schools have long had the authority to test students who exhibit suspicious or disruptive behavior, but the court has been steadily chipping away at the rights of students (and adults) who have done nothing to provoke such intrusive searches.

In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas expanded on the court's strained argument that students who elect to participate in football, cheerleading, chess club and other extracurricular activities implicitly give up rights that apply to those students who somehow manage to avoid such activities.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion, the ruling has the perverse effect of discouraging students from participating in activities that can enrich their educations. Nor can indiscriminate testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities be justified on the public safety grounds that allow for the random testing of pilots, chauffeurs and people in similar professions. What clear and present danger is this ruling designed to prevent? Flying pompoms? Runaway rooks?

A narrow court majority has deemed random drug tests constitutional, but that doesn't mean school districts are obliged to start lining up their students. Pinellas County schools spokesman Ron Stone had the appropriate response to the ruling. "It's really a question of trust," he said. "It's a very expensive proposition, and unless there's been some cause for suspicion, I don't see us doing it."

Pinellas County and most other area school districts have zero-tolerance policies that deal harshly -- sometimes too harshly -- with students who drink or use drugs. Still, they are likely to avoid the treacherous path the court has opened for them. There are less expensive and less demeaning ways of dealing with the problem of drugs in our schools, but some of our current justices won't be satisfied until they leave the Fourth Amendment reduced to a puddle that would fit in a small cup.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page