Drug Tests in Schools

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to decide whether schools may give random drug tests to nearly any student seeking to participate in school-sponsored extracurricular activities. The case calls into question a decision by the Tecumseh Board of Education in Pottawatomie County, Okla., to make compliance with random drug tests a prerequisite for participation in any after-school activity at Tecumseh High School, from the math team to the cheerleading squad.

The case, Earls v. Board of Education, represents the first federal challenge to a drug-testing requirement for students in academic courses. Many extracurricular activities at Tecumseh High School, such as the marching band, choir and academic team, form integral parts of the academic curriculum. A refusal to take the drug test thus means that the student is not able to obtain credit for the course and is excluded from other activities.

One of the most fundamental features of the American legal system is the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt. Suspicionless searches or drug testing of students are in no way compatible with that principle. Moreover, government officials—including public school principals—may not search citizens without reasonable justification, and membership in such groups as the math team or the marching band does not in itself justify an intrusive search.

The Court’s last decision on the subject, in 1995, allowed the random drug-testing of student-athletes as a prerequisite for playing sports. However, it relied upon a number of factors specific to competitive sports, including the heightened risk for injury, as well as a finding that drugs were endemic in the school’s athletic program. No evidence has been presented that Tecumseh High School’s choir suffers from a significant drug problem, or that illegal drugs pose a heightened risk of injury to the singers. Although subsequent decisions by appeals courts have tried to expand this decision, the Court should uphold its previous standard and prevent the blanket use of drug tests in all extracurricular activities.

Furthermore, groundless drug tests would represent a step backward from constructive approaches to the problem of adolescent drug use. A 1995 Department of Health and Human Services study found that participation in extracurricular activities is strongly correlated with decreased drug use. The peak hours for juvenile crime are between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m., when many students are released from school and have nowhere to go. If schools are worried about student drug use, they should make efforts to involve more students in extracurricular activities rather than lock them out.

But the Supreme Court’s decision should be motivated by more than practicality. As Justice Abe Fortas argued in Tinker v. Des Moines, “In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution.”

In taking this case, the Court should reaffirm that students are indeed “persons” under the law. They should not be subject to random, groundless and intrusive searches.