Posted on 08/07/2008 5:43:48 AM PDT by ozark hilljilly
Folks, I'm so mad I can't see straight and I hope the smarter(than me) people here at FR can advise us on this.
At school registration we got a handout informing us about a change to school policy. Starting this school year, any student who wishes to participate in any extra curricular or co-curricular activities must consent to random drug testing! Needless to say I was 'stuned' and speechless. We're not a big metropolitan school district, we're a very small, rural school. This was apparently done during a closed session of the school board's meeting over the summer. As far as I know NO INPUT from the parents was asked for, no open meeting was held on the matter. They just up and decided to enact this!
The cite a 2003 Supreme Court ruling as to the legality doing this. I am livid, as are my kids. This new policy would include Band, we think, and both my kids are in those classes. My youngest was in tears at the thought of a total stranger observing her urinate-even if it was "just listening for normal sounds". She has a hard enough time as it is in public bathrooms. (She's at that age when any bodily function discussion makes her squeamish.) My oldest (who had the priviledge of having a real American History teacher last year) immediately brought up the 4th amendment.
If I don't consent, then my children cannot be in Band. Heartbreaking. (and I just got the instruments paid off!) My children aren't giving up their bodily fluids to the state! To me this is guilt before innocence. I haven't calmed down enough to speak to the principal about this, yet. So to help me when I do finally confront her about this, what advice can y'all give me? (links, legalities, etc.)
/sarc
//you watch, someone will say it and mean it
It’s a voluntary extra curricular activity.
I have zero problems with it.
Does the new plan require teachers to submit to drug testing?
Ha! Yes, that was already brought up by our pastor! She warned us about that. Heck, search me all you want-just keep your hands off my kids!!
If the entire football team told the coach to stuff it and walk out, the policy would be changed within 10 minutes.
It’s a racist policy. It will never stand.
Drug test the teachers, administrators and the school board.
Yes, it’s “voluntary”,but it doesn’t stipulate what they would have to give up if they refused. For my kids, it means giving up being in Band. We don’t have much to offer kids here and Band is actually a cool class to be in.
Your school doesn't seem to be kicking kids out for drugs, but it does seem to be making an effort to identify kids with a problem, so that the problem can be dealt with. Parents will have to confront their children's behavior. Children will see that behavior has consequences, "I'd like to be on the team, but I failed my drug test."
I think this is a small step in the direct that schools should be going in. I applaud your school.
We haven't used it in years. Scalia - the so-called originalist - honors federal jack booted thugs and stare decisis over the literal words of the original constitution. I don't understand his love of authoritarianism. For all of his supposed intellect, itt is why I will never be able to respect his opinions.
Damn right. This ought to offend the puredee-hell out of anyone who loves freedom, and honors the idea that these characters above us actually work for us, and aren't little tinhorn dictators.
It looks like while you were posting someone else was already saying it.
I have greater than zero problem with it. Much greater than zero.
My tax dollars are being used to bring this sort of crap about.
It is amazing to me how many people in this country have “zero problems” with the rights of OTHERS being violated by agents of our government. If someone required YOU to take a drug test before engaging in your favorite “voluntary extra curricular activity” you’d probably change your tune.
The fact that you have zero problems with a government agency requiring children to pee on demand, disturbs me.
THANK YOU! That’s exactly the point!
Guilt before innocence.
I gave the only political donation that I have ever given to one man - Fred Thompson - and I am really angry that he didn’t take McCain down in the debates.
He had a Reaganesque quality to all the zingers he delivered as well.
I don’t have a problem with it either. My daughter was on the soccer and cross country teams in high school and was tested. When she graduated, she went to the Air Force Academy and was tested there, too. I was in the military and was tested periodically. The sensitive nature of my job now makes me subject to periodic testing as well.
In many schools and other situations, the authorities don’t actually watch them urinate. The temperature of the urine is measured within 4 minutes and if not above 95, it is discarded and a specimen collected under direct observation.
I’ll say it. What are you worried about?
I miss Fred!, too. :(
When it comes to drug testing, don't expect much from our conservative brothers and sisters except ridicule. For some, the constitution can is a pick and choose item. :(
For the record, both my girls have had no problem with their pre-employment drug screening and still disagree with the school's drug screening. The 'druggies' don't participate and bum rides.
Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). (Written by Justice Scalia)
BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS, 536 U.S. 822 (2002). (Written by Justice Thomas)
Vernonia originally set the standard to apply to athletics. Earls expanded the standard to all students who participate in extracurricular activities. (Courts have held that this even applies to students who drive their vehicles to school and are issued school parking permits.)
A student is free to be exempted from the Drug Testing, but they in turn must forfeit the right to participate in any extracurricular activities.
That's the law. So those are your choices.
My taxes that fund the school going to pay for this crap for one...
In certain jobs-yes, it’s a necessary evil. I don’t want my school bus driver with a drug problem driving my kids, but these are minors, kids that are 12 and up.
This is how facism comes to your town-with a smiley face for the good of the children!
What I would suggest, when they ask, refuse. When the rest of the band see a fellow member kicked out for refusing to pee then everyone agree to drop out. When there are no more extra carricular activities because of it, they will reasses the policy. It’s good to teach kids to challenge overbearing governmental policies. Especially those that come in the name of ‘protecting us’.
“When it comes to drug testing, don’t expect much from our conservative brothers and sisters except ridicule.”
Those folks may CLAIM to be conservative but, alas, I fear they are not. I’m not sure exactly WHAT they are, but they are “not the conservatives I knew”.
Careful with that notion of "rights".
No one has a right to be on the football team.
No one has a right to be in the band.
These are priviledges given to children who follow rules and guidelines and who qualify to participate.
This is the ruling they cited.
We are all reduced down to the lowest common denominator. I figured that out when our girls went from private Christian schools to public in the 6th and 10th grades. Couldn't have water bottles because it MIGHT be vodka. When my daughter left her lunch box in the car, I couldn't take it to the office for her because I MIGHT have put a gun or drugs in it (the office recommended she BORROW money from someone). etc etc...
The camel’s nose under the tent, imo.
These statements are mutually exclusive. The first one is evidently false.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Supreme Court has held that random drug testing for students who are granted extra rights (participating in extracurricular activities) is NOT unreasonable.
You do not get to dictate what is reasonable and what is not.
And the 4th Amendment does allow for some leeway.
You can stomp your feet and throw a tantrum all you like, but the 4th Amendment says what it says. Not to mention, there is no Constitutional right to smoke dope.
Scalia and Thomas are Conservatives. The read the Constitution in a textual manner.
The fact that you want anarchy and want to run naked in the streets while strung out on dope doesn't change that fact.
If you don't want your kids tested, fine, that is your right. But they then forfeit the right to participate in extracurricular activities.
He had no problem with it and neither did I because ..."He's my son"...and if he has a drug problem, I would want to know.
The rights refered to are, the right to be free of undue search, and the right against self incrimination. It hinkthose are still on the books for now.
And they are correct. That is the law.
Find out who is profitting from the actual test processing and see it there is a relationship between them and the school board.
“The fact that you want anarchy and want to run naked in the streets while strung out on dope doesn’t change that fact.”
OH, dangit! I’m so busted now. : )
Too bad there is no right to be free of "undue search" in the Constitution. Only a right to be free of "unreasonable" searches. There is a difference.
Unreasonable is open to interpretation. The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution in instances where there is some leeway. The Court has done so. (Scalia and Thomas no less.)
Thank you. I was wondering that myself and have it on my question notes.
When I went to school, you were required to take electives (band, art, etc) as part of your school curriculum in order to graduate and get into college, just as you were required to take a foreign language and have so many semesters of history and math, etc. If this is still the case, then your statement "voluntary extra curricular activity" is incorrect.
I think post #30 has a nice explanation of the fact that no one’s constitutional rights are beign violated here.
The requirements are the same here in this district.
That wasn't directed at you. Seriously though, random drug testing is not that big of a deal. Even though my kids are homeschooled, I still require them to submit to random drug testing in my home. (You can buy the kits at walgreens.)
BTW: I am not aware of any drug testing program in Public Schools where the tester actually watches the children urinate. Instead, they send the kids into the bathroom alone to urinate.
Not to mention the testing is RANDOM, there is a good chance your kid will never get called on.
Also keep in mind that Soldiers, Police Officers, Firefighters, EMS personnel and a host of other occupations are all randomly tested as a condition of employment.
Many employers also require all of their employees to be tested upon hire.
What is reasonable about requiring EVERYONE in a given age group, whether suspected of acrime or not, to submit to a search?
Well, if Band is a choice of the required curriculum electives, how can it be extracurricular?
Is it taught during the school day like any other course?
If so, I don’t know how they possibly include it in their definition. Are they requiring students who take art class to be drug tested?
It does not matter if you have a problem with it. We are a nation of laws and the law of the land states that:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Extra-curricular activies is not probable cause. In fact kids who are involved in things are less likely to mess around with drugs. This is stupid on so many levels, the least of which is that it violates the core values that our nation was built on.
It's illegal, immoral, wastefull and ultimately ineffective. At a minimum if you have "no problem with it" then please raise the money yourself and leave my tax money out of it.
Have your kids thought about getting into drugs? It might be cheaper then instruments and then they won't have to worry about drug testing. /sarcasm
Most schools had a policy for this for athletics when I was going. I hate to break it to you, but our band and drama club were probably the worst offenders and weren’t subject to testing. They would have had a much higher rate of offenders had they included those two groups. Our band was actually rather notorious for it.
Yep, my thought too. Odds are somewhere there’s a connection between someone on the school board and the company that is doing the testing. Check your local board of elections and see who is donating to the individual school board member’s campaigns and does that correlate to anyone in the Testing Co (owner/chief officers either individually or via PAC). I don’t know how to verify PAC donations.
Legally there’s nothing wrong with it, but if there’s a maverick media source in the town they might be interested.
An undue search, is an unreasonable search. Sorry to use different terminology. Same thing.
If I was so inclined, as a parent, I wouldn’t have a problem axing my kid for a test. But having some state official insist upon it...nope.
If privacy during peeing is allowed, then how accurate can the test be? That seems to negate the whole thing.
Random? Ha! We have a very small school, there are less than 200 hundred kids, total. The odds are good, if they test every month as stated that my kids number would come up eventually, I think. (but stats was never my strong suit.)
My SIL is a bus driver for the district and she just happens to get tested every other month-funny how her number always comes up! So much for random.
Again, testing ADULTS when their jobs involve PUBLIC SAFETY isn’t the question here. What are my rights as a parent?
yep, conservative used to mean protecting individual rights. now, for some, it just means "our" side gets to wear the jackboots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.