It appears public discussion of civil rights issues develops too slowly in Lincoln County to keep up with events, especially concerning school policies. On 11/23/99, just two weeks after the idea was proposed, the LCSD Board of Directors confirmed their previously reported enthusiasm and unanimously approved a three-year program of random drug tests for high school athletes. Only two parents, including myself, spoke regarding the tests; both were opposed. Neither of the two brief News-Times articles about the proposed testing indicated public discussion would be considered; certainly it was not invited.
Begining next fall, prior to participation in sports programs, student-athletes and parents will be required to sign statements consenting to each student being tested, without warning or cause for suspicion, for a variety of illegal and performance-enhancing drugs. The tests are part of a "study" called "SATURN," which is funded by a federal grant and will be administered by Oregon Health Sciences University researchers at no direct monetary costs to the school district. 10 to 20% of students will be tested during each sports season.
Students who fail these random tests will be subject to penalties which, as of the time of the vote by the Board, were unspecified. Unanswered questions about the penalties were raised by Board Director Val Moore, who was concerned about the fairness of having one set of penalties for students with positive tests and a set of different penalties for students who were otherwise caught for drug use. District Superintendant Jack Stoops, PhD., brushed aside these concerns, reassuring the Board that the details of a fair policy could be worked out prior to implementation of testing in September, 2000.
Additional questions about penalties were raised in discussion of a letter from the Oregon ACLU which informed the Board that, although the US Supreme Court approved drug testing for student-athletes, the Oregon Constitution is more protective of students' civil rights, and may, in fact, reject testing as an invasion of privacy. The ACLU also suggested that the LCSD legal insurance may not cover the type of lawsuit contemplated by that organization; in which case, the expense of a legal defense would further damage the LCSD's already pitiful financial condition. Nevertheless, the Board was reassured by vague verbal commitments from OHSU researchers that the hospital's legal department would defend their study . The researchers were, however, unwilling to take responsibility for the imposition of penalties. The key issues of legal liability for penalties and the ultimate cost of legal defense remained unaddressed.
I asked the head researcher, Linn Goldberg, M.D., PhD., in view of the study's expressed concern for students' health, why the tests did not include tobacco? He answered that tobacco is not "mind-altering." The School Board also appeared unconcerned by the absence of tobacco testing. On the other hand, Alan Lesher, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the federal agency whose grant is underwriting the Saturn project, was quoted just this past week (11/21/99) in a Parade Magazine article about the effects of drugs on the human brain saying, "Alcohol, heroin, cocaine, nicotine, marijuana, all modify dopamine function in similar ways." Elsewhere in the NIDA website , tobacco is described as a key "gateway drug," leading young people toward abuse of "harder," less socially acceptable, drugs:
Typically, the adolescent whose drug involvement progresses to substance abuse begins with commercially available drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.... For this reason, cigarettes and alcohol are sometimes called "gateway" drugs.... Among tobacco smokers 12 to 17 years of age, two thirds have also used an illegal drug, and among those smoking more than one pack per day, four-fifths have used an illegal drug." (emphasis added) NIDA research calls nicotine a "gateway drug"
Supt. Stoops and Board members Doug Hunt and Jim Kennison, Ph.D., expressed enthusiasm for the testing proposal because the schools will be "participating in scientific research." However, the description of Saturn as a scientific study is questionable. The alleged purpose of the testing is to measure whether drug testing deters students from using drugs. Yet, the baseline and "control" data will be gathered through anonymous verbal surveys among students in other schools. These student responses will be compared to the precise data from urinalysis from LCSD students to judge whether or not testing reduces drug use.
When I asked Doctor Goldberg what assurance researchers have that students' survey responses are reliable, he responded that they had statistical methods of "scrubbing" the data to eliminate false information. Everyone who's had Statistics 101 knows that extreme data can be eliminated -- but this was not the question. I was not referring to extreme exaggerations, but just to insincere answers from students who do not take the questionaires very seriously. In one classroom during a recent State of Oregon survey, students were joking around and one clean-cut young man made a typical remark: "Hey, why isn't crack cocaine on the list? That's my favorite." Some students use their answers to shock or to impress adults with the "sophistication" of their generation.
The ultimate results of the "study" are a foregone conclusion; testing will show far lower drug use than the questionaires -- proving drug testing is a successful deterrent and should be widely used in schools. However, the real purpose of presenting Saturn as a scientific study is two-fold: first, as a "study," the project is formatted to receive grant funding from the federal government; second, as "scientific research," Saturn has a non-punitive image and can be presented in a positive light to parents and school board members. (This is not to mention the commercial benefits to drug testing companies.)
The Board's uncritical embrace of SATURN underscores the fact that the drug tests are not being presented to parents and athletes and the community as a regrettable but necessary sacrifice of the privacy rights of a minority group. The lack of respect for each athletes' individual integrity is being obscured. To the contrary, the impression is that students will be encouraged to celebrate consenting to the tests as an opportunity to display their innocence, to signify their membership in an exclusive "squeeky-clean" club.
The tests are described as voluntary, since only students who choose to go out for sports will be tested. But, imagine the sacrifice and stigma facing athletes who object and refuse to participate. There will also be personal embarrassment for those young people whose personal sense of modesty and dignity will be offended by having to urinate into a cup under the watchful eyes of monitors, whose sensibility to being suspected and searched and having their privacy invaded will be one of personal violation. Not all of us would be so concerned, but for those who are, this is a significant cost and should not be ignored by the Board.
To be sure, the board's enthusiasm may be good politics. Scary as it is, many people may follow the line of thinking recently encountered in a locker room conversation at the YMCA: "If a person has nothing to hide, why on earth would they object to being tested?" Encouraging such complacency and uncritical acceptance by children of the sacrifice of their precious constitutional rights is a very serious risk that will come from including this experience of invasion of privacy in the education of these students. When our student-athletes are grown and it is up to them to defend the Bill of Rights, I fear they will be less vigilant and more willing to compromise further because of their LCSD drug testing. Perhaps they will decide that all automobile drivers, school board members, or pregnant women, should be subject to random testing. After all, why should anyone object who has nothing to hide? The same might apply to weakening the constitutional protection against warrantless searches of homes.
As things stand now, random drug testing of automobile drivers, adults and minors alike, is not practiced - because it would be publicly regarded as a violation of rights to privacy, presumption of innocence, the right to refuse to give evidence against oneself, and the right to freedom from unwarranted searches. We don't test drivers without specific evidence of impairment, despite the fact that driving while under the influence of drugs is extremely dangerous. Unlike drivers, students in general cannot be required to submit to drug testing as a condition of receiving a public education because they have a constitutional right to attend school. However, driving is, like participation in prep sports, a priviledge, not a right. The question is, why do we think it is acceptable to compromise student-athletes' privacy rights, yet we do not test drivers in the analogous, but far more dangerous, situation of driving an auto? Clearly, the answer is that most drivers are adults. Testing student-athletes focuses on a vulnerable, disenfranchised, minority.
I will suggest yet another possibility: most everyone agrees that abstinence from sexual activity is highly desirable for unmarried school-age children. Someday, in a possibly not-too-distant brave new world, it may be proposed that certain minor children, maybe student-athletes, be required to submit to random DNA examinations to determine if there is evidence of sexual activity. The technology exists to perform such tests. The only difference being that the collection of evidence may be even more embarrassing and invasive. Will our student-athletes, by then parents and school board members themselves, accept such an additional violation of privacy for their children? I suggest it will be far more likely if we impose such violations on them.
Because a significant yet small minority of teenagers have been known to use illegal drugs, LCSD is preparing to require the whole group of student-athletes to be tested. As a group these people have not given cause for suspicion. Nevertheless, we will require them to sacrifice their privacy rights and submit to random testing. One of the most powerful lessons this program will convey is that suspicion on the basis of group stereotyping is acceptable. Nothing could be more detrimental to efforts to combat racial and religious and ethnic bigotry than this. We cannot hope to teach tolerance for diversity while employing punitive techniques based on stereotyping and status-profiling.
If the "War on Drugs" is so important that in order to win we must infringe on liberties protected by our Constitution's Bill of Rights, then I submit that we should all contribute equally. We should not draft a vulnerable, disenfranchised, group of student-athletes to serve as front-line soldiers in the battle. If, as a society, we cannot regulate drug use and contain drug abuse to a tolerable level, if war is the only way to maintain public safety and health, then we should seek a constitutional amendment allowing random, suspicionless, drug testing for everyone.