Posted on 01/31/2013 10:16:50 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
One Kansas City high school is taking the war on drugs to the next level. Beginning this fall, Rockhurst High School will require students to submit their hair for random drug tests, reports KSHB. In a somewhat bizarre-sounding process, a staff member who happens to be a barber will cut about 60 strands from randomly selected students' heads or bodies. (KSHB helpfully clarifies that hair in private areas will not be touched.) The Jesuit institution will then test for everything from cocaine and PCP to pot and signs of binge drinking; the test is said to be able to identify consumption in the last 90 days.
Positive tests will result in the student's guidance counselor bringing in the parents and student for a discussion, to "get him help if necessary," says Rockhurst's principal. The school administration will not be informed of positive tests nor will universities find out. "Nothing prohibits it," the legal director for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri tells CBS News. "But it is a colossal waste of money."
“I wouldn’t be sending my kid to this school..”
I wouldn’t either. Granted, this is a private school so if they make the decision that everyone shaves off one eyebrow... the parents have to allow it or leave. That being said, schools have become very intrusive into becoming “the parent”. They feel entitled to intruding into the parent/child relationship.. usually without merit. Now, if they saw some kid acting like they were on drugs then notify the parents of their suspicion. Check lockers, check backpacks. However, to pull hair out of a child’s head to check for the possibility of drug use.. with no other suspicion other than it is a kid.. is beyond intrusive to me. What happens if there is a false positive? What happens if the child did take a tylenol #3 with a doctor’s script? This kind of info will get out and damage the reputation of the kid... As stated, I wouldn’t send my child to any private school that would allow such an intrusive search. IMHO.
The Admin and Parents at Rockhurst are Christian, and as Christians, they know they are not perfect and neither are their children.
They are trying to keep their standards high and the school has a reputation based on those standards.
Or.... would you rather they just drop their standards, ignore drug abuse, allow the parent's considerable financial investment to go to waste, and have another educational facility turn to mush like many public schools?
The problem is NOT that they are doing this in a private school, but that they don't do it in public schools.
Oh..... the parents who pay the high tuition required to attend Rockhurst do an excellent job of vetting the teachers.
Really?
Do you understand that it is the parents who want and support this drug testing at that school ?
Parents know that teens can be influenced by other teens, so they want to know if any of the students are abusing illegal drugs, and if their children are involved. Help is provided to the students who fail the test, and the school admin uses no punishment nor records the failure.
This is a win situation for everyone involved and keeps the government out of it, so how is it a 'police state' ?
This is a private Catholic School. Not part of the Public School System. If FReepers are against this policy what the hell are you doing on this site? P.S. I am not a Catholic.
I would not put up with such an invasion of privacy. Disgusting to see so called conservatives supporting the degradation of personal freedom from witch hunts such as this.
No. Don't need it. It's a PRIVATE CATHOLIC BOYS SCHOOL and they can search anyone anyway they want.
KC parents need to unite and let these people have it.
They have. They give money to the school because it has an excellent reputation. The parents like the idea that drugs will be kept out of the school and that those who would waste the teacher's time and shortchange the value of education that the other children are trying to get are helped or removed.
The USSC has already ruled that rights do not end when a student walks through the school house doors.
Oh.... you're completely correct. It is better to have a school where the teachers are just room monitors who wear blinders while the students rap and party until they are 'released' for the day. A school where guns and knives, murders and injuries are acceptable inconveniences. A place where tons of money is spent, and children learn nothing. Yeah.... soooo much better than a school like Rockhurst.
Actually, you are correct, but don't yet see it (or maybe you do and I'm reading your comment wrong).
The School is separate from the State. Rockhurst is not a public school. This is being done not because the 'state' wants it, but because the alma mater of the school want it.
Well.... because they are not little children. They are adolescents on the brink of legal age and entry into the marketplace. It's an ALL BOYS PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL.
Drugs are a problem, in every school, and if you don't deal with it, it will eat up your children, your school, your community.
Uh.... in most public schools, IIRC, you must have a complete physical before you can enlist in a sport. Is that an 'invasion of privacy' ?
Well... these 'Christian' students (boys) live in neighborhoods with kids who don't attend Rockhurst. They are easily influenced adolescent minds. It is the spread of drug use (and the society that comes with it) that 'surrounds' the school, and not necessarily an 'evil' from within the school.
Besides, it makes more sense that this elite school would be pro-active. Shutting the corral gate after the horses all run away is not a productive way to run a school.
I'm pretty sure they already have that covered.
i’m not.
So, then, you’re ok with curtailing rights as long as it agrees with your myopic world view. Gotcha.
So, then, you’re ok with curtailing rights as long as it agrees with your myopic world view.
I had to take a complete physical examination to play in SPORTS in HIGH SCHOOL, and to attend BOY SCOUT CAMP.
Government employees can be required to take drug tests. Most jobs these days require drug testing. Any incident at any COMPANY location which required either medical treatment of damages company property REQUIRES an immediate drug test.
JUST WHERE in the CONSTITUTION does it state that children entering a PRIVATE SCHOOL have a RIGHT not to have to take a drug test (or physical exam, or mental exam ?)
Rockhurst requires one undergo an EDUCATIONAL TEST to qualify to attend the school. Is that a 'curtailing of rights'?
Shouldn't just any old kid (say.... one like Adam Lanza) have the RIGHT to attend a PRIVATE school, and do so without any kind of testing, and also shouldn't it be FREE if it's a 'RIGHT' ????
GOTCHA BACK.
What rights are being curtailed here? Nobody is going to be forced to send their kids there.
Would you say that the bus drivers are given drug and alcohol tests ?
The parents paid for the children to attend the school. They did not pay for the children to give up their protections under the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches. You think that one relinquishes one's rights because one's parents get them into a private school? So, then, there are no expectations of freedom of speech, freedom to practice one's religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, protection from incriminating oneself, et al, if one's parents pay for admission to a private school. So, by extension of this line of thought, there are no protections under the Constitution and Bill of Rights for students attending a private university.
We are not talking about allowing children to act like animals like they do in inner city public schools. We are talking about children being forced by school officials to have about 60 hairs snipped by one of the faculty for involuntary drug testing.
Drug testing as a condition of employment is not mandatory. You do not have to accept employment by any firm or agency that requires drug testing. One agrees to the testing beforehand and it is therefore voluntary. These children, whose parents have determined that this is their school, do not have that option. They cannot simply not go to the school in which their parents have enrolled them.
Again, education is not a right, but one does not give up one's protection against unreasonable search and seizure simply because one joins a private institution of education.
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.