Driving to school means sacrificing privacy

At the beginning of the current school year, Seneca Valley school district began randomly… At the beginning of the current school year, Seneca Valley school district began randomly drug testing student athletes and student drivers ostensibly in an attempt to curb drug abuse and steer students who need it into help.

In 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that testing of student athletes was acceptable because they have a “lesser expectancy of privacy” than other students. While this classification can be seen as suspect, it’s backed by the highest court in the land and is therefore, for the sake of argument, above reproach.

The district has been forthright in stating their intention to eventually have random access for testing to all secondary school students. While this is extreme, at least it’s uniformly so, and thus fairer.

Students who apply for parking passes, though, shouldn’t be held to different standards than those who take the bus to school. The implication is that student drivers, like student athletes, are somehow less private individuals and should be subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. This begs the question: Who’s next? Members of the chess club? What is a fair distinction?

The district has seen an upswing in students being caught for drugs and alcohol, and the idea is that testing will act as a deterrent.

It hasn’t.

The district tests 40 students each week, and over the months of January and February, four months after testing began, eight tests came back positive. This clearly indicates students disregard the threat of testing, or aren’t concerned enough with consequences to stop using drugs.

So the district has in place an ineffective, intrusive policy that students and parents were firmly against from the beginning.

The testing is random, but the cost is not. The parents of any student selected for testing are expected to pick up the $26 balance. Not every parent can afford to arbitrarily shell out money on the whims of a school district intent on knowing every detail of a student’s life.

No one wants to see high school students troubled by substance abuse and no one could argue that a student wrangling with addiction should be helped as soon as possible. That said, why stigmatize students based on car ownership or a nice jump shot?

The time for the school to intervene is when a problem becomes apparent. Traditionally, school counselors have relied on suspicion of teachers or concerns of fellow students in order to disrupt a student’s life by intervening.

And after all, whatever happened to good old-fashioned getting caught by the cops?