Drug Testing in Schools: Unacceptable Infringment or Necessary Evil?

In two cases, Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton and Board of Education v. Earls, student's right to privacy and their right to be "secure in their persons" as stated in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is threatened by school-mandated drug testing. In both cases, in order for a student to participate in extracirriculars (or in athletics, in Vernonia) they must sign a form and submit to urinalysis tests that search only for drugs, are not turned over to law enforcement officials, and are given to teachers only on a need-to-know basis. Students challenged the school's ability to make the drug test mandatory for participation in extracirriculars and claimed it was an infringment on their Constitutional rights.


In both cases, the Court held in favor of the school. In Vernonia, they ruled that "the decreased expectation of [student's] privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search . . .[make] Vernonia's Policy. . . reasonable and hence constitutional. The Court ruled similarly in Board of Ed. v. Earls. Their reasoning included similar arguments, including that "students who participate in competititve extracirricular activites voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrustions on their privacy as do athletes." In both cases the Court agreed that students relenquish some of their rights when entering extracirricular activites. In the Vernonia majority opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court also held that the compelling nature of the subject of the searches makes them reasonable. Scalia stated that "School years are the time when the physical, psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most severe. . .[and] have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks to athletes." In the interest of gaurding student safety and health and combatting the national drug problem, some rights must be sacrificed. Also mentioned in Vernonia was the disruption of education caused by drug use on campus. "A large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics was in a state of rebellion. . ." Action was needed to maintain a healthy school environment that facilitates learning. In the Board of Ed. v. Earls decision, the Court goes on to say that "drug abuse is one of the most serious problems confronting our society." It is vital that officials target this issue and protect children from the detrimental effects of drug abuse. 


I have never been a proponent of drug use.  Wasting time abusing drugs is a vile waste of one's life when there are so many other opportunities to explore. Not only that, but drug use is detrimental to one's health and well-being.  I agree wholeheartedly with the court's decisions to protect students, rather that their right to privacy in these two cases. When students become involved in activities affiliated with the school  that are not mandatory (that is to say, privileges) they do surrender some of their rights. In both cases, students had a choice: sign the form and receive the urinalysis test, or don't participate in athletics/extracurricular. This rule was not made to squashing student's rights, but to squash a huge campus-wide problem of drug use. A problem that was distracting from the educational responsibility of the school and the responsibility of the school to provide a safe, controlled environment for students. Also, because neither urinalysis test would subject students to invasions of privacy outside what they would normally experience in a locker room or public restroom setting, I agree with the Court that in these cases, the school has right to enforce drug testing policies. The health and safety of students is more important than a right to privacy that they would lose upon walking into any public restroom anyway. 


That being said, sometimes the school goes too far. In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding an eighth grade girl was needlessly strip searched because another student, caught with ibuprofen pills, threw her name out when questioned and threatened with punishment. First of all, people will say anything to get them off the chopping block when they're in trouble. The school should not have taken the student's suggestion that she'd received the pills from Redding so seriously, as Redding had never had a breach of discipline and was an excellent student. If, however, they had cause to believe that Redding could have pills, the search of her locker and backpack would have been enough to disprove them. The strip search was violating, wholly unnecessary, and completely ignores the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches. In a case such as this, where student's safety is not threatened (the painkiller equivalent of two Advil pills is NOT an immediate threat to safety), and the reasonableness of the search (based on Redding's record and the foolishness of the accusation) I would agree with the Court and say that the balance of rights is not in line. The school trampled on Redding's rights to privacy of her person, and should be held accountable. 


Being a fan of drug abuse prevention and student health, I like the idea of drug sniffing dogs. The dogs sniff school property such as lockers, and student property such as backpacks and cars on campus lots. They do not search people themselves. Chief Clark states that the point of the searches is to "make it as hard as possible for anyone to bring drugs into the school." In the interest of protecting students in the unique school environment, some rights must, in part, be relinquished. Random dog searches are a good way to keep students on their toes and make sure they know that if they choose to bring illegal substances to school, they will be caught. 


The balance between student's rights and school's obligations is a delicate one. In many cases it becomes necessary to shift the balance in favor of the school's decisions, based on the protection and education of students. However, when the balance becomes ridiculously weighted towards the State, we must fall back on the Constitution to defend student's rights as all other citizen's rights. Based on the Court's decisions in these last few cases, it is clear that the balance being maintained, at least at the Supreme Court level, is appropriate.