School drug tests: right or wrong? Many schools could begin drug tests on athletes after Supreme Court ruling

Current Events, Sept 11, 1995

WASHINGTON, D.C It's September-back-to-school month the USA. From Maine to Hawaii and from Florida to Alaska students' thoughts have turned from summer fun to books, classes, teachers, football, and-in some schools-drug tests.

Drug tests? Yes, drug tests.

Earlier this summer, on June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Vernonia School District v. Acton. The decision paved the way for schools to administer random drug tests on student athletes.

Permission to Test

The case began in 1991, when James Acton was a 7th grader in the Vernonia, Oregon, school system. All James wanted then was to join his school's football team. But when he brought home a permission slip for his parents to sign, they refused. The slip granted permission for the school to submit James to random drug testing. Such tests were required of all student athletes in Vernonia.

Random meant that school officials could collect a urine sample from any athlete-whether or not that athlete was suspected of drug use--at any time during the season. Vernonia had started such drug tests to cut down on what school officials viewed as widespread drug use among students. James himself, a good student, had never been suspected of using illegal drugs.

Not only did the Actons not sign the permission slip, they sued the school district, charging that random drug testing violated students' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits government from conducting "unreasonable searches." The Actons charged that Vernonia's policy of requiring random urine samples of student athletes was unreasonable because it "searched," or invaded, the bodies of all athletes, including those who had never been suspected of drug use.

Lawyers for the school district argued that random drug testing was "the only effective way to deal with a drug-use epidemic among school-children."

Through the Court System

The judge who heard the case agreed with the school district, ruling that random drug testing of student athletes was legal and constitutional. But the Actons appealed the ruling to a higher court.

The appeals court reversed the lower court ruling, agreeing with the Actons that random drug testing of student athletes did, violate the Fourth Amendment.

"Children are compelled to attend school," the appeals court ruled. "While they must attend classes and follow school rules, that does not indicate that they have given up their basic privacy rights."

Vernonia school district appealed this decision to the highest court in the land-the U.S. Supreme Court. Each year, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear important cases that affect the constitutional rights of Americans. Many of the cases concern the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

The nine Supreme Court justices carefully weighed the arguments on both sides, then, by a majority of 6 to 3, decided against James Acton and for the school district. Random drug tests on student athletes, ruled the Court, are legal and constitutional and do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, said that schools, as "guardians" of children have the right to act as parents would act in similar situations, and random drug tests in those circumstances are not unreasonable.

The decision was widely cheered-and just as widely booed.

'A Horrible Decision'

"It's a horrible decision," says Howard Simon of the American Civil Liberties Union. "If young people . . . understand what the Supreme Court did, they will understand that the Courts says the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them."

"Sadly, the Court, like much of society, has let the War on Drugs overtake its good sense," argues an editorial in Newsday. "By [supporting random drug testing], the Court teaches a terrible lesson to school-children about the meaning of freedom."

A Good Decision

Along with such widespread criticism of the Supreme Court's decision, there was also widespread support. Supporters believe that random drug tests will help reduce teen drug use. (See graph on page 4.) They argue that school athletes-and the kids who look up to them as models-may stop using drugs if random testing is done by schools.

"This decision by the Supreme Court could make American schools safer, American kids healthier, and high school athletics fairer," says an editorial in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. "At the least, it resurrects the idea that schools have some responsibility for protecting their charges against drugs."

BACKGROUND

The case of Vernonia School District v. Acton brings into focus the current debate surrounding how much protection the Fourth Amendment provides individuals. The key part of this amendment states that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated... "

Writing for the majority in the court's 6 to 3 vote on the case, Justice Antonin Scalia said that students' rights under the Fourth Amendment were outweighed by a school's interest in ensuring a drug-free environment. Plus, Scalia added, student-athletes-who often change clothing in cramped areas and clean up in communal showers--have a low expectation of privacy. "School sports," Scalia wrote, "are not for the bashful."