ACLU urges Vestavia Hills board not to expand drug testing
Aug. 6, 2002
Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama (ACLU) wrote to the Vestavia Hills City Board of Education and superintendent to urge them to reject a proposal to expand their drug testing policy. The board is meeting today to address implementing a policy that would require all Vestavia Hills Middle School and High School students who engage in extracurricular activities to submit to random, suspicionless drug testing.
Below are excerpts from the letter:
“The ACLU shares the Board of Education’s concern about student drug use. But, random suspicionless drug testing is not a solution to the problem. In fact, random, suspicionless drug testing may increase student drug use, while, at the same time, invading students’ privacy and creating a negative atmosphere of suspicion in the schools. We hope that the Board of Education will reject any proposal to expand its drug testing policy.
“Doctors, social workers, and education professionals agree that random suspicionless drug testing of students who participate in school activities is not an effective way to deter student drug use. The American Academy of Pediatrics explained: “Involuntary testing is not appropriate in adolescents with decisional capacity – even with parental consent – and should be performed only if there are strong medical or legal reasons to do so.” See American Academy of Pediatrics, “Testing for Drugs of Abuse in Children and Adolescents,” Pediatrics, Vol. 98 No. 2, (Aug. 1996) [ hereinafter AAP Study]. The AAP concluded that “Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling [in Vernonia], students and student athletes should not be singled out for involuntary screening for drugs abuse. Such testing should not be a condition for participation in sports or any school functions except for health-related purposes. Id.
“There are several reasons why these experts oppose such random drug testing policies. First, the current and proposed drug testing policy targets the wrong students. Involvement in extracurricular activities is correlated significantly with decreased drug use. See Jeanne E. Jenkins, “The Influence of Peer Affiliation and Student Activities on Adolescent Drug Involvement, Adolescence, Vol. 31, No. 122, Summer 1996; see also Dr. William Bailey, Indiana Prevention Resource Center, 1998 Survey of “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use by Indiana Children and Adolescents.” [hereinafter Indiana Study] (“[M]any random school drug testing programs are unlikely to detect much drug use, since they often target the lowest risk students. ...”); Dr. Nicholas Zill, Christine Winquist Nord, and Laura Spenser Loomis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, “Adolescent Time Use, Risky Behavior and Outcomes: An Analysis of National Data at 3 (Sept. 1995) (“The findings indicate that organized youth activities can help to deter risky behavior in adolescence and young adulthood..”); Brief of Amici Curiae American Academy of Pediatrics, et. al. at 10, Board of Educ. v. Earls, 122 S.Ct. 2559 (No. 01-332) (2002) [hereinafter Amici Brief]. Testing the students who are least likely to take drugs does not help to decrease drug use.
“Second, testing all students who want to engage in extracurricular activities could actually lead to increased drug use. The single best way to prevent drug use is to encourage student participation in extracurricular activities, as “extracurricular involvement plays a role in protecting students from substance abuse and other dangerous health behaviors.” Amici Brief at 4; see also Indiana Study at 5. Students are most likely to do drugs when they are left without adult supervision or constructive activities. Extracurricular programs extend the time the students spend under adult supervision and provide productive and positive activities for students. Extracurricular activities also allow students to engage other students and teachers to create valuable relationships that improve self esteem and help students create support systems. These relationships also help to decrease the likelihood that a student would engage in drug use. See Amici Brief at 12.
“Forcing students to submit to drug testing in exchange for the opportunity to engage in these activities is likely to dissuade participation from those students who most need the protection provided by extracurricular activities. According to the experts, “A broader body of research concerning adolescent attitudes strongly suggests that, under policies [that randomly test all students who engage in extracurricular activities], a significant number of students will respond by choosing not to participate.” Amici Brief at 19-20; see also Robert Taylor, “Compensating Behavior and the Drug Testing of High School Athletes, The Cato Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3. (Winter 1997). The students who are most likely to spend their free time experimenting with drugs are the students who would forgo the extracurricular activities, thus giving these students more unsupervised free time. See Amici Brief at 20 (stating that the students most likely to drop out of extracurricular activities in response to drug testing “is precisely these students for whom the benefits–and protections–of extracurricular programs are most valuable”). Thus, random drug testing will cause the protective aspect of extracurricular activities to be lost to the very students to whom it is most valuable.
“Such policies also create an atmosphere of mistrust in the school system, which “can have a significant impact on students and school morale.” See Indiana Study at 5. According to a study in Indiana:
There is an implicit statement of mistrust that accompanies the adoption of a suspicionless drug testing program. There is an implication that the persons subject to testing cannot be trusted to remain drug-free, and that verification is needed. Since this implication is made, despite lack of evidence creating a suspicion of use, school morale may be adversely affected. Youth and staff subject to testing may resent, or even rebel against, this implication of mistrust. Id.
This atmosphere is not just disruptive at the school, it also sends the wrong message to students about how they should be treated and how they should treat others. Schools are entrusted to help students become responsible and self-sufficient adults. Schools must teach students the basic values upon which this country was built. Indeed, “that [schools] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its sources and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.” West Virginia Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943) Among those fundamental tenants of our democracy is the principal that people, including children, are presumed innocent and cannot be arrested or searched unless there is reason for suspicion. The drug testing program, however, would teach the students just the opposite, lumping the vast majority of innocent and responsible students with the few guilty ones. The school district should question whether they want to teach their students to accept being assumed guilty and to presume that others are guilty.
“Vestavia Hills spent $8,400 last year just to launch a program to test athletes and cheerleaders. Extending the program will, of course, cost significantly more. The school funds would be better spent on a program that could address the problem of student drug use. The students would better benefit by an investment in improving the extracurricular program, educating students about drug use, or creating a program to provide comprehensive evaluations by qualified health professionals when a child is suspected of drug use.
“The Board of Education may be able to craft a drug testing program that would be upheld by the current Supreme Court, but that does not mean that the school should pass such a program. See Earls, 122 S. Ct. At 2559 (2002) (“In upholding the constitutionality of the Policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom.”); id. at 2571 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“I cannot know whether the school's drug testing program will work. But, in my view, the Constitution does not prohibit the effort.”). But see id. at 2572 (Ginsberg, Stevens, O’Connor, and Souter, JJ., dissenting) (“The particular testing program upheld today is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse: Petitioners' policy targets for testing a student population least likely to be at risk from illicit drugs and their damaging effects.”); Tr. Oral Argument at 21-22 (O’Connor, JJ.) (calling the drug program “counterintuitive” and “absolutely odd.”). For the reasons explained above, we urge you to reject the proposal to expand your drug testing policy.”
###