Stop drug research on Oregon kids
07/08/02
Oregon students shouldn't be forced to participate in scientific
experiments. That's a no-brainer. But they are, with the classic
justification that the invasive research is "for their own good."
Several Oregon students are among the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
filed late last month in U.S. District Court against Oregon Health & Science
University and 14 Oregon school districts. The lawsuit says a federally
funded study of school-based drug testing violates the rights of students.
We strongly agree. We're unsure if the students will prevail, since legal
precedent may not be on their side. But there is no question that
suspicionless drug testing, particularly when combined with an outside
research study, is an ethical morass and an abuse of school power.
Dr. Linn Goldberg of OHSU won a $3.6 million federal grant in 2000 to
determine whether random drug testing deters drug and alcohol use among
student athletes. The study has at least 13 Oregon districts participating
as "control" and "experimental" groups. OHSU says it didn't force the tests
on schools. However, the grant helps fund the drug tests, and researchers
determine the testing protocols.
And the invisible hand of the researcher is ever present -- sometimes
offering a metaphoric slap for student athletes who fail to obey.
One girl from the Oakridge School District met Goldberg's wrath last year
for refusing to give a urine sample. She "undermines the entire program,"
Goldberg told the press. "She is saying, 'I want to be different than you.'
"
That kind of pressure on children is appalling. Treating students as guinea
pigs adds insult to the main injury -- the drug tests themselves.
Drug testing in schools is constitutional because of a 1995 Supreme Court
ruling in a lawsuit by a 12-year-old Oregon boy against his district. The
court upheld the Vernonia School District's policy of testing all athletes,
saying the public benefit of reducing drug use outweighed students' privacy
rights.
The majority's misguided opinion laid the groundwork for the court's 5-4
decision this June to allow drug testing of students in all extracurricular
activities. The slippery slope was greased with the court's original
thinking: suspicionless drug testing may be intrusive, but it's for the
students' own good.
Protests against the drug testing and research in Oregon have been limited,
which isn't surprising. Families don't want to make waves. Students can't
ruin their college plans by sitting out sports and activities. And many
parents have taken drug tests required by private employers.
So why should schools be any different? First, private employment is a
choice, unlike school. Second, schools are part of the government. If one
part can justify suspicionless searches, so can others.
Finally, public school offers the best chance to teach young people about
civic rights and responsibilities. What about a teenager who grows up
thinking the government can take her urine and bully her into being a guinea
pig?
Schools do need to stay vigilant about drugs and alcohol. Enforcing a
zero-tolerance policy is critical. Testing for athletes who show clear signs
of drug use may be justifiable as a last resort; one student's steroid use,
for example, can put other students at risk.
But Oregon families should follow the lead of parents in Lincoln County, who
protested loud enough to get five schools removed from the study. It's far
better to encourage teen-agers to play sports and join activities than to
treat them like Future Offenders of America.
