Student Drug Testing Is a Popular Procedure Today - Essay Example

Law Essay Does the Law Allow Public Schools to Test Athletes for Drugs as a Participation Requirement? i. Introduction Student drug testing is a popular procedure today in most of the public schools in the United States and there have been all kinds of discussions since its introduction over thirty years ago. Largely, there are people that think the drug testing initiatives introduced in the schools overlook the right of privacy and go against the constitution that states they should not be subject to irrational investigations and confiscations (Deke 175). For most of the complainants, the Fourth Amendment Right is the basis of all the arguments; however, this is not completely correct even though it has a significant assertion (Thomas 4). The United States Supreme Court has enunciated a number of ways that student athlete drug testing does not infringe the Fourth Amendment Right or any other that various students have filed suits on, especially the high school athletes. The first case that attracted a lot of attention was the Vernonia v. Acton where student athletes, in support of their parents, accused their school in court for violating their rights through the drug tests. However, the United States Supreme Court ruled against the students by allowing the public school to continue with the administration of the drug tests. From this verdict, it is clear that the students do not have the option of evading the tests and the public schools have the permission of using force; moreover, this could apply even when the school administration does not have any reason suggesting that the student may have abused drugs. Based on the results of this, public schools in different parts of United States initiated drug-testing programs for every student participating in other supplementary undertakings including being members of certain clubs. A few years later, the Supreme Court experienced another case of Board of Education v. Earls where the court supported the general practice giving all public schools the mandate to administer drug tests to all scholars who engaged in any activities sanctioned by the school administration. Additionally, the Supreme Court also went further to permit the subjecting of drug tests even the rest of the students that did not participate in extracurricular activities. Essentially, even before the Vernonia v. Acton case, the United States Court of Appeal had made it clear that it is not necessary that public schools have an apparent reason to frisk scholars in the New Jersey v. TLO case. All the same, the public schools required a rational notion of the student engaging in unauthorized actions; relatively, this meant that the same apply for the drug tests where the law stated that the students should provide one, once the school asked for it with judicious doubt. Assertively, the drug test initiative is just a federal law and how schools enforce it would depend on the state and local laws; furthermore, most of the state courts are not in support of it like the United States Supreme Court, a reason as to why there are a lot of debates on whether it should apply. ii. What the Law Says about Student Athlete Drug Testing Students’ drug tests are forms of searches and examinations under the Fourth Amendment of the United States laws that safeguard the people against irrational examinations and confiscations. Relatively, the state officers have the obligation of conducting them if there is a rational incentive and the same applies for the public schools and their scholars. Most people will argue that most of the drug tests do not base on suspicion, which is true, because not every student’s behavior depicts that they have ingested drugs. Evidently, to a certain extent, the public schools seem to be taking advantage of the law to invade student rights and privacy, which explains the basis of most debates on the issue. The collection and analysis of urine samples, as upheld by the court are a good way to examine drug abuse, but it should apply only for the students that the public schools suspect and not everyone that participates in extracurricular activities. All the same, the Supreme Court’s basis on the matter is decisive, especially because most of the people with complaints are either parents that are defending their children or student athletes that abuse drugs. On a second note, the Supreme Court bases the upholding of the drug test initiative on the laws that compare the incursion on discretion and interests of authority; resultantly, from this it states that what the government wants to achieve comes first before people’s privacy depending on the seriousness of the situation and the correctness of their concerns. Clearly, this advocates for drug testing, not only for the students participating in supplementary undertakings, but for everyone; moreover, there is clarity on why and when the search (drug testing) should happen (UNC School of Government 1). However, the students’ complaints are understandable in reference to this law because there is no way to establish whether the person conducting the search (drug test) made the right decision, following the precise protocol. On the other hand, the students might take advantage of the law by arguing that the administrator had no rational reason to invade their privacy or that the search did not base on government interests. Generally, application of this law depends on the consent and scrupulousness of the public schools and the students. Due to the debate on which rule in the United States Constitution supported the students’ drug test, the Supreme Court shed some light on the issue in one of the cases where they discussed about the imposition against the discretion interest of public school athletes. The law explained about the nature of a student’s privacy, which the Supreme Court said to base on the current situation and how the student relates to the state; unfortunately, the notion behind it did not seem to support the students and their privacy in any way (Goldberg 425). However, it is not that the law did not respect the students’ right to privacy; actually, it set a limitation on what the public schools would consider as privacy. The state, through the schoolmasters, in the law acts as a guardian to the students and naturally, adults have more rights than them since they make most of the critical decisions concerning the students. Generally, the law gives the public schools control over the students hence they can decide on giving them drug tests anytime that they wish with aspects such as privacy and right from unreasonable searches in the background (Jenco 1). Evidently, the law seems harsh to the students given that the Supreme Court almost eliminates the factor of privacy from the equation; moreover, it does not consider the question of reasonable doubt like the other laws. However, it would work effectually for high school and junior schools’ students since they are in the institutions courtesy of their parents who control most aspects of their lives (Thomas 10). Moreover, the public schools act as representatives of the state and it is in their jurisdiction to make sure that students’ learning environment is free from distractions and barriers of utter education. This argument is coherent but it clearly lessens the privacy of the students’ depicting them as less important people of the state and nation of the United States; moreover, it gives them no other option but to comply with what the public schools command. Appreciably, the Supreme Court agrees that the students have every right to complain about the interruption of their privacy and other rights during the process of drug testing; moreover, the public schools should follow the right protocols. iii. Comprehensive Analysis Significantly, the aim of Vernonia was to make sure that the Supreme Court abolished the student athlete drug testing in public schools but due to the lack of enough supporting evidence for their arguments, this did not happen. Even during this time, no one ever thought that student athlete drug testing would turn out the way it did with multiple debates, some of which are still there today, where some people in support and others completely against it. Resultantly, after the first case most of the public schools took up the drug testing initiative and made it part of their strategies with other policies that also advocated for it (Thomas 8). However, this was not good for everyone because it was the foundation for most of the constitutional faults with different states courts having dissimilar verdicts; in fact, to some extent it looked like a competition. The students also felt the pinch since their privacy terms were always under discussion with most of the rulings overlooking their rights and interests; moreover, the public schools policies based on the new laws on drug testing. Generally, the matter consumed a lot of time yet the constitutional laws were not in line with conflicting rulings; secondly, some of the students suffered especially when they took the drug tests and those found with drug content faced indefinite suspension. In the Todd v. Rush County Schools Case, the complainant was angry because of being suspended and that there was no notification, it was a random test. The Supreme Court was always consistent on its ruling from the beginning but the state courts were not efficient enough making the whole idea seem complicated. Patently, today the United States still experiences these problems; for instance, in the recent past, the court’s verdict was that it allowed student athlete drug tests even without any misgiving for the sake of their wellbeing and that of their environment based on the constitution. The court came to such a ruling because random tests have fewer barriers and problems compared to testing based on rational reasons where there is separation of students. All the same, the challenges have augmented especially because the United States government allows state constitutions and in most cases, the student athlete drug testing is very different i.e. the Washington Constitution does not allow anyone to miss the tests even for special cases (O’Hagan 1). Decisively, most of the public schools continue to conduct the tests and some students are up for it while others still disagree; extensively, both sides have rational arguments and perceptions of the testing. The students’ athletes’ rights and privacy are essential privileges that the laws set on drug testing should observe; on the other hand, random drug tests are for the best of public schools to protect the learning and education environment (Deke 178). Both parties should find a balanced way that will meet their interests; however, this will require them to lose some of irrelevant opinions and consider all aspects of other relative laws. Works Cited Deke, James. The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing: Journal of Adolescence Health 50.2 (2012): 172-178 Goldberg, Elliot. Drug Testing in Schools: National Institute on Drug Abuse 41.5 (2014): 421-429, Web, 21 November 2014, http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/drug-testing/faq-drug-testing-in-schools Jenco, Mellissa. D203 Weighing Costs, Privacy Concerns of Drug Testing Athletes: Chicago Tribune (2013). Web, 21 November 2014, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-10/news/ct-tl-naperville-d203-drug-testing-update-20131010_1_privacy-concerns-drug-testing-high-school-athletes O’Hagan, Maureen. WA High Court Says Random School Drug Testing is Unconstitutional: The Seattle Times, 2008. Web, 21 November 2014, http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004279865_webdrugtests13m.html Thomas, Clarence. Drug Testing in Schools: Office of National Drug Control Policy 92.1 (2012): 2-16. Web, 21 November 2014, https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/drug_testing.pdf UNC School of Government, Supreme Court holds that suspicion-less, random urinalysis drug testing of student athletes is constitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution: North Carolina School of Law 47.6 (1995). Web, 21 November 2014, http://csl.sog.unc.edu/node/1190 Read More