Drug abuse is a major problem in our society as a whole and increasingly within our youth. In recent years, many school districts have implemented student athlete drug testing programs within their schools. Athletes were targeted because student athletics are voluntary and the “athletes are often held to higher standards than other students, keeping their grades up for example” (Tantillo, Wen & Morgo, 1995, p. A22).
“The issue of drug testing has caused a national debate that still persists. The debate hinges on the right to privacy of the athlete and whether such testing is constitutional under the U.S. Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure” (Siedentop, 1998, p. 149).
This issue has been presented in front of many courts, resulting in different rulings.
A student athlete drug testing case, in an Oregon school district, resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court hearing. In the Vernonia school district all student athletes, between the grades of seven and twelve, were required to participate in the drug testing policy. According to Phelps at the Washington Bureau (1995), the mandatory urinalysis required boys to provide samples at urinals, with teachers watching from behind, while girls had teachers listening outside stalls as they provided their samples in private. drug education seminars or suspension from the team for two athletic seasons were the consequences that one faced if their test result was positive.
The Essay on Drug Testing in School
Benefits and downsides of drug testing in schools/ Help for those who test positive. The topic of drugs in schools has always been one that is prevalent in society and a main concern toward protecting our youth. Billions of dollars get spent every year on drug agencies that focus on stopping the importation of drugs to America and their distribution. Some of those funds also go to anti-drug ...
One seventh grader, James Acton, disagreed with this policy and refused to submit a urine sample. Acton’s defiance resulted in his being thrown off of the football team. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Acton and his parents filed a suit, claiming that James’ Fourth Amendment rights were being violated. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision ruled against the Actons, finding that “public schools plagued with drug use among students can require their athletes to submit to drug testing” (Phelps, 1995, p. A05).
In a White House statement following the ruling, President Clinton supported the court’s decision saying it “sends exactly the right message to parents and students: Drug use will not be tolerated in our schools” (Phelps, 1995, p. A05).
Even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of student athlete drug testing, in 1995, many state courts have since ruled otherwise. In August of 1997, New Jersey courts issued a restraining order to prevent the implementing of drug testing policies for student athletes by the Ridgefield Park Board of Education. (American Civil Liberties Union [ACLU] ,1997).
The ACLU of New Jersey filed a suit on behalf of a student, claiming that “the drug testing program violates the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures” (ACLU, 1997).
In the preliminary hearing, Judge Moses concluded that ” the ACLU was likely to succeed on its claim that random drug testing of student athletes would violate their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures” (ACLU, 1997).
In September of 1998, The ACLU of New Jersey announced that the Ridgefield Park Board of Education agreed to abolish its random drug testing policy (ACLU, 1998).
“Random drug testing of student athletes can seldom, if ever, be justified under the New Jersey Constitution,” ACLU Staff Attorney Rocah argued (ACLU, 1998).
The Report on Random Illegal Drug Testing Among High School Students
Purpose Using illegal drugs has been problem affecting different age levels. People use illegal drugs for so many different reasons. Even high school students do drugs in order to enhance their performance in academic, athletic, or extracurricular activities. Although not every high school student uses drugs to modify student’s skills, this ill-defined drug use in high school bring up the question ...
In addition to New Jersey, other states have ruled similarly claiming that like New Jersey their state constitution has been “historically interpreted… as providing greater protections of individual rights, particularly in the area of searches and seizures” (ACLU, 1997).
Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas asserts that the “Fourth Amendment ensures that all Americans will not be treated like criminals just to catch the few criminals among them. The same should go for young Americans” (ACLU, 1997).
School officials should not violate a student’s privacy without reasonable suspicion that they have done something wrong. It is this suspicionless, random search that the ACLU finds to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Opponents of these drug testing programs find it unnecessary because “if school officials have reason to believe that a particular student is using drugs, they already have the power to require that student to submit to a drug test” (ACLU, 1997).
Drug education programs are seen as an alternative to testing. It seems far more practical to “spend money to teach kids skills… that will encourage them to make good decisions rather than… spending that money on drug testing” (Valenti, 1995, A21).
Judy Shelton,!
coordinator for New York State’s drug awareness program “Action On Target,” stresses that “drug usage is a problem in probably every single high school… with athletes and non-athletes” (Valenti, 1995, A21).
Education, not testing, is the answer.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already established that “students in public schools don’t have the full range of rights they can eventually claim as adults” (Tantillo et al., 1995).
Therefore, random drug testing may not be seen as unreasonable and as a Fourth Amendment violation. Advocates for student athlete drug testing agree with President Clinton that “drug use will not be tolerated in our schools.” Athletes are often role models for the rest of the student body and it is important that they set a good example for others.
In conclusion, I believe that there are both negative and positive aspects to random student athlete drug testing. We do not want our athletes to feel violated, guilty, and wrongfully accused, yet, it is important that we make sure our athletes are setting a good example for others. All athletes should practice a healthy lifestyle, including staying drug-free. For this reason, I feel that the positive effects surpass the negative ones, and drug testing should be implemented into school athletics, as well as, drug education programs for all students. Through athletics students will not only learn sport skills, but also the meaning of responsibility and how to make mature and healthy decisions.
The Essay on Drug Testing In High School Athletics
Drug Testing in High School Athletics Kids do as kids see is a popular statement you hear often. This is true to a certain extent. When a baby is growing up, him / her mimics other people s moves and actions to help he / she learn. However, this statement becomes totally untrue when that baby becomes a teenager and decides to enter an athletics program in high school. Each person has choices and ...
Works Cited
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (1997, August 26).
NJ Judge Blocks Testing of Student Athletes.
American Civil Liberties Union. (1998, September 24).
NJ School District Abandons Random Drug Testing Program.
Phelps, T. (1995, June 27).
Drug tests OK: schools can require them of athletes. Newsday, A05
Siedentop, D. (1998).
Introduction to Physical Education, Fitness, and Sport. California: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Tantillo, M., Wen, M., & Morgo, J. (1995, July 03).
Keep the kids clean. Newsday, A22.
Valenti, J. (1995, March 28).
In New York, educatio
