[ OUR OPINION ]
Drug testing in school
faces possible pitfallsMID-PACIFIC Institute is considering subjecting all its students to drug testing, which, as a private school, is its prerogative. If parents object, they can send their children to a public school or another private school. Similar mandatory drug testing of all students in public schools would certainly result in lawsuits alleging invasion of privacy and probably would be struck down as unconstitutional.
THE ISSUE Mid-Pacific Institute is considering mandatory drug testing of its students because of the prevalence of drug use among Hawaii's young people.
The increased use of crystal methamphetamine among Hawaii's young people has created understandable concern. Increased efforts are needed to inform students about the dangers of drugs. Suspicionless random testing without parental permission is legally impermissible.
City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle has proposed a program modeled after policy in place at several Louisiana public schools, which test hair samples of student athletes and students whose parents have requested the testing. The Food and Drug Administration has approved testing of hair follicles for drugs, and it is used by courts, police forces and other law-enforcement agencies. That program probably would conform with constitutional requirements, but one question is whether it would stigmatize students whose parents refuse permission.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that public schools could conduct random drug tests of student athletes and expanded the ruling last year to include students in other extracurricular activities. While upheld, those policies are likely to discourage many students from participating in activities that expose them to anti-drug peer pressure.
A federal judge in Texas struck down a school district's mandatory drug testing of all public school students two years ago. District Judge Sam R. Cummings pointed out that numerous cases in the Supreme Court and appellate courts "made it clear that general concerns about maintaining drug-free schools or desires to detect illegal conduct are insufficient as a matter of law."
Last week, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati struck down a Michigan law that required drug testing for parents who apply for or receive welfare benefits. The rationale for the law was the need to protect children and to encourage welfare recipients to seek work. District Judge Victoria A. Roberts ruled that the testing violated "the closely guarded category of constitutionally permissible suspicionless testing," which generally requires a threat to public safety. The Supreme Court has ruled that random searching of railroad employees, for example, is constitutional.
Senate President Robert Bunda has proposed a "pilot program" of universal random drug testing in Hawaii's schools. Legislators have rightly balked because of concerns about privacy rights and instead plan to form a task force to study the issue. The legal issues are clear; the only issue is whether to begin a drug testing program that conforms with constitutional restrictions without creating other problems.
