School security should be balanced with privacy rights
THE ISSUE
The Board of Education has postponed a vote on rules to govern school safety and student conduct.
|
BALANCING a need for safety with the privacy and rights of children, teachers and other staff at Hawaii's public schools
is proving to be a difficult task.
On one front, the Board of Education, which has been grappling for months to produce a new set of rules for student conduct, put off a decision this week on the proposals. Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii is poised to file a lawsuit challenging the legality of random drug tests for teachers.
The two are separate undertakings, but both are reactions to the perception of heightened security risks at schools.
The random testing requirement came after six drug- related arrests of teachers and other education employees and might be warranted. However, officials acknowledge that ramping up rules to allow students' lockers, bags and the students themselves to be searched -- with or without reason or cause -- is not the result of more illegal materials being found in schools.
Though there is a need for procedures to head off trouble, the board and Department of Education officials should be careful not to create a hostile atmosphere at schools. The new policies should be in proportion to risks.
The sweeping disciplinary proposals, last updated six years ago, cover numerous issues, including bullying, use of new tech devices, and drugs and other contraband on campus.
When a company offered the board demonstrations to show how its dogs could sniff out drugs, alcohol and guns unobtrusively, the novelty of a friendly golden retriever's ability was intriguing enough for the board to approve a free pilot program at three school districts. But the legal ramifications of expanding the program became a hurdle.
As part of safety rules, the board sought to give school officials unlimited authority to search lockers, classrooms and other facilities as well as students' bags and clothing. But some board members were reluctant to step into privacy disputes.
At present, officials can inspect school property only when there are health and safety concerns and cannot force children to take off clothing that exposes genitals or breasts. The proposals would still ban the latter, but eliminate the need for reason or cause, a standard that could breach a student's rights.
As for teachers, the drug test requirement was inserted as a non-negotiable item by the Lingle administration in a recent contract offer. Some have told the ACLU they felt they had no choice but to approve the contract if they wanted a pay raise.
They are not opposed to drug tests when there is reasonable cause, but the ACLU has warned of a lawsuit if the random testing isn't canceled, which does not seem likely.
