Expanded drug tests in schools? The Supreme Court considers whether more students should be checked. (National).

National

If you find yourself being marched to the school bathroom next fall with a plastic cup in your hand, don't blame Lindsay Earls.

Earls was randomly called out of choir class at her rural Oklahoma high school three years ago and ushered into a bathroom stall while her math teacher, music teacher, and cheerleading coach listened on the other side of the door for the sound of urine hitting a plastic cup.

"It was really uncomfortable," Earls recalled recently. "And it was embarrassing. I really felt my privacy was invaded."

TEST CASE

She protested the drug test in a lawsuit, arguing that it violated her protection against illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She lost at the local level, but won on appeal. Her school board took the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could rule in the next few weeks.

Her case, Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, will determine whether high schools nationwide can vastly expand drug-testing programs.

The battle over student rights goes back to the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Tinker v. Des Moines School District, which held that students do not "shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate." But since then, a series of cases has opened the way for police searches of student lockers and backpacks even when students aren't suspected of breaking the law.

The Supreme Court has already ruled once in favor of expanded drug testing. In 1995, the Court determined that schools can require drug tests of student athletes when a drug problem is shown to exist. During the past three years, student athletes have faced mandatory drug tests in about 5 percent of schools nationwide, according to a University of Michigan study.

But the ruling left unclear how much further drug testing could go. In the past three years, about 2 percent of schools decided to test all students involved in extracurricular activities. One such school was in Tecumseh, Okla., where Earls was a member of the high school's show choir and academic team, which competes in statewide quiz competitions.

INSIDE THE COURT

Addressing the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Oklahoma school board and the American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights group representing Earls, had barely begun presenting their cases when several Justices started asking questions that revealed deep divisions over what rights the Constitution guarantees high school students.

Justices who seemed opposed to the drug testing immediately pointed out that, by the school board's own admission, drug use was more of a problem at Tecumseh High School for students not involved in extracurricular activities.

"There is more drug use in the group that isn't tested," pointed out Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "than in the group that is being tested."

Justice David Souter complained that students aren't really free to refuse taking the tests, as the school board argued when it said students could simply decide not to do extracurricular activities. "They are under tremendous pressure to agree to it," he said of the students. "They know perfectly well that they won't get into a competitive college" if they do not participate in extracurricular activities.

GIVING SCHOOLS LEEWAY 

But other Justices argued that the national drug problem in high schools is so serious that school boards should be given a lot of leeway to devise whatever remedies they think might work. They seemed particularly impressed that the drug-test results weren't turned over to local police, but were instead used to identify students for counseling.

"No one is arrested. It's counseling. It's an effort to deal with the demand side of drugs," said Justice Stephen G. Breyer.

The arguments even produced an unusual jab at Earls herself from Justice Anthony Kennedy. Comparing two hypothetical high schools, one "druggie" and another with testing, Kennedy told her lawyer: "No one would want to go to the [druggie] school, except your client."

But Earls passed the drug test. Of Justice Kennedy's comment, she said: "I just blew it off and laughed about it. He doesn't know me. I'm clearly not a druggie."

Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth College, said she has no regrets about going to court. "I was afraid if no one said anything, next year they'd start strip-searching us," she said. And if she loses? "I'll be really disappointed, but the Court will have spoken."

lesson plan 2 * NATIONAL

Expanded Drug Tests in Schools?

FOCUS: In Supreme Court Case, Teen Says Random Drug Tests Invade Privacy

TEACHING OBJECTIVES

To help students understand the background of a potentially landmark Supreme Court case--whether schools may expand drug testing beyond athletes to others involved in extracurricular activities--in which the Court may further define what rights students have.

Discussion Questions:

* Should students who have not used drugs object to random drug testing?

* Should a high school's drug-testing policy distinguish between students who engage in extracurricular activities and those who do not?

* Should athletes be the only group singled out for drug tests?

CLASSROOM STRATEGIES

Before Reading/Discussion: Have students read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Then open the class to discussion of what constitutes "unreasonable searches and seizures." Ask students to suggest examples of reasonable and unreasonable searches.

Critical Thinking: Next, move on to the question of evidence. Should school officials be required to produce evidence of the use of illegal drugs before they subject students to drug testing? If so, should there be evidence against specific students or would it be sufficient to demonstrate that there is a general use of illegal drugs among the student body, without identifying individual students? Does random testing for drugs discriminate against innocent students like Lindsay Earls or, as some justices argue, is it justified by the serious national problem of drug use in high schools?

Finally, discuss the crux of the Lindsay Earls case. Remind students of the difference between the Fourth Amendment rights accorded to adults and the rights accorded to minors. (Earls would not have been pulled out of choir for a drag test if she were 21.) Are Fourth Amendment protections just another example of the many areas--drinking and driving, for example--in which the law distinguishes between the rights of adults and minors?

Web Watch: For background on the Fourth Amendment as it relates to student searches, see www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ ftrials/conlaw/searches.htm.

QUIZ 2 Use with National, pages 14-15. Fill in the blank.

1. Under comprehensive -- drug-testing programs, every student would have a chance of being tested.

2. Lindsay Earls cited the -- Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in her drug-testing case.

3. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can require drug testing for those students who participate in -- programs when a drug problem is shown to exist.

4. Earls is being represented by the American Civil -- Union, an organization that defends people's civil rights.

5. Justices who support drug testing of students note that drug test results are not turned over to the police. Instead, they are used to identify students for -- about drug use.

Upfront Quiz 2, TE 6 1. random. 2. fourth. 3. athletic. 4. Liberties. 5. counseling.