Here, pee in this
Posted
January 16, 2008 at
7:52 pm by
Prescott
Your kid works hard, juggling hours of basketball practice with their school work, getting up early in the morning and coming home late at night. He showed the coach his dedication, and earned that spot on the varsity team. Then he went on to lead the team in scoring and rebounds. And what is his reward? No, not a starring role in High School Musical, instead, his natural ability is questioned and he’s tested for steroids:
The Illinois High School Association on Monday joined a small but growing number of states to implement mandatory random drug-testing for student-athletes. Its Board of Directors voted 10-0 to begin testing with the 2008-09 school year.
The timing was coincidental with two highly publicized incidents regarding drugs and sports. Last month the Mitchell report on the use of performance-enhancing substances in baseball included allegations Clemens, the seven-time Cy Young Award-winning pitcher, had taken steroids and human growth hormone.
Last week a U.S. District Court judge sentenced former Olympic track champion Jones to six months in prison in part for lying about her use of performance-enhancing drugs.
While at least a few dozen Illinois high schools have instituted drug-testing of athletes on their own in the last two decades, this is the first time the IHSA has mandated statewide testing. Few, if any, of the schools tested for steroids.
I’m what you might call a bit hard core when it comes to right-to-privacy issues, even when it comes to our kids’ schools. I don’t condone random locker searches, and I don’t condone random drug tests. I think it sends a horrible message to our children, that no matter how much they strive or how much they try and keep their noses clean, they will always be under suspicion. When I hear, “Well if they aren’t doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about,” it makes me want to punch something. The fact that someone isn’t doing anything wrong means they should be free from being hassled.
Like I said, I’m a nut about such things, so maybe I’m being irrational — can anyone offer a little perspective? Is there any good reason why our school district should be conducting drug tests?
Tags: Education, high-school-sports, illinois, mandatory-drug-testing, steroids |
6 Responses to “Here, pee in this”
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately in an effort to remove commercial messages, irrelevancies, excessive foul language, racist/sexist/hateful comments, spoofed/cloaked IPs and/or personal attacks and will be edited/deleted at our discretion. Thank you for your patience.
1. Art said:
January 17, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I agree with you on much of what you say about “privacy”, however, nowhere in our nation’s constitution is the word, or the concept, of privacy even mentioned. That said, I live just 10 miles from the rural consolidated high school that was the first to require random drug tests for it’s athletes.
High school athletics are (a) voluntary with regard to participation, (b) a privilege to engage in, not an automatic right, and (c) put the student athlete, whether he/she wants it or not, into the position of both role model for other students (particularly those in the lower grades, and being pretty visible representatives of their high school and its student body.
It seems to me that those roles make it very important that student athletes (or for that matter, any student who goes out for any school extracurricular activity) be of the best character they can be, and that includes commission of any illegal act (last I looked, it’s highly against our state laws, as well as US Federal law, for anyone to manufacture, sell, POSESS, or USE illegal drugs. William Henry Harrison High School was taken to court by a small group of parents who objected to this random search (way back in the late 1980’s), the case went to the US Supreme Court about 1994 or so, and the school’s policy was upheld by a wide margin.
Basically, the principle involved here is, you want to play sports at our school? Well then, there are rules that you must follow (and by the way, those rules include academic performance, regular attendance, and the potential suspension or dismissal from the team or teams in the case of criminal violations even away from school–and I believe that all of this is as it should be. Random drug tests are in effect ONLY for extracurricular activity participation, they are not administered to the student body at large in that school.
Interestingly, this policy isn’t even a subject for debate at Harrison, nor within the TSC, the county school system. I’m not certain if it has been instituted in either of the city high schools here, but I do believe our Catholic high school now does it.
2. prescott said:
January 17, 2008 @ 11:18 am
But it doesn’t matter that locker searches and drug tests are constitutional, that doesn’t make it RIGHT. Corporal punishment is still legal in over 20 states, but I’m guessing most parents in those states don’t want teachers paddling tardy students. Or would you not have a problem with a teacher cracking your kid across the mouth since it’s “legal”?
If the schools were singling out kids suspected of using illegal substances that might be one thing, but I for one think our children deserve the respect of a presumption of innocence, whether they explicitly have that right or not.
3. Cathy said:
January 17, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
Prescott,
I accidentally came across your site a few days ago and have visited almost every day since. Your thoughts are very insightful as well as entertaining.
Art’s points are very good. However, just because you’re looked upon by other students, just because you voluntarily participated, and just they were priveledged doesn’t mean that your rights can be violated.
But why dismiss the fact that kids these days have A LOT of pressure to do well in every aspect of school, not just academics. It seems as if you have to be class president, a member in every club at school, and graduate with a 4.5 GPA or better to even get into reputable colleges these days. It’s just not surprising to hear that kids take drugs to enhance their athletic performance to take some pressure off of them.
4. Rita said:
January 17, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
My response was going to be a combination of some of Art’s and Cathy’s points–first off, drug testing for a voluntary activity is different than locker checks. It’s agreeing to participate in this as part of the activity.
Secondly, I think that for kids (and these people ARE kids), it would relieve some pressure really. If the kids are being pushed to perform (not just by coaches, but by outside sources) then adding drug testing takes a layer of temptation away from them. They can’t use enhancing drugs, they aren’t faced with any sort of big decision about whether or not to use them, because the decision is made for them–they can’t or they WILL be caught because there is drug testing. So, why even peddle to them? I think it’s actually good for the kids. Not as a policing thing per se, but as a removal of an outside pressure, if that makes sense.
5. julymom said:
January 18, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
I agree that random drug tests for a voluntary sport is different than a locker search. No one makes them play these sports. It’s a choice and a privilege, not a right. If they were randomly testing students at school, then yeah, I’d pitch a fit, but a sport that is not mandatory, I have no problem with it.
6. Art said:
January 24, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
[quote comment="137651"]Apparently we interpret the 4th Amendment differently.
But it doesn’t matter that locker searches and drug tests are constitutional, that doesn’t make it RIGHT. Corporal punishment is still legal in over 20 states, but I’m guessing most parents in those states don’t want teachers paddling tardy students. Or would you not have a problem with a teacher cracking your kid across the mouth since it’s “legal”?
If the schools were singling out kids suspected of using illegal substances that might be one thing, but I for one think our children deserve the respect of a presumption of innocence, whether they explicitly have that right or not.[/quote]
I’m really not trying to be argumentative here, but I think many people misinterpret the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (which prohibits unreasonable searches).
What the 4th Amendment truly addresses is the concept that law enforcement or other government agency might come into your home (or search your person) “gratuitously”, meaning without any probable cause, regardless of circumstance.
Such as “drug tests” are used increasingly by employers evaluating potential new hires (that’s been upheld by the Supreme Court of the US on more than one occasion), and such drug tests are pretty much standard fare for employers holding US Government contracts for goods and services to be provided to any government agency. They are also required of any operator of a motor vehicle used in interstate commerce if involved in an accident, whether or not the operator (driver) in question was at fault or not. Further, such drug tests are required of railroad locomotive engineers and airline cockpit crews in case of an accident, again regardless of their being at fault or not (this has also been upheld by the courts).
Harrison High School in Tippecanoe County Indiana was the first high school in the US to institute drug tests for all athletes, in the late 1980’s, on the premise that student athletes competing in interscholastic sports are representing their school not only on the court, the football or soccer field, the swimming pool, baseball diamond, or in track & field and cross country–indeed all sports in which the school fields interscholastic teams. The expected lawsuits were filed, and the case wound up in front of the US Supreme Court in the early 1990’s. The Court basically said, that it was in the interest of the school to counteract illegal drug usage (this was before the steriods scandals in professional sports)and as long as the particular activity was voluntary on the part of the student, that just as in employment situations, the school was within its right to require such as a condition of participation.
At very nearly the same time as Harrison’s adopting this policy, several other school districts around the country attempted to take this issue to another level, attempting to require drug tests as a condition of a student’s attendance at school. The Supreme Court ruled against this sort of sweeping requirement, even though most of those other schools insisted that no student would be suspended or expelled, the Court still said “No”.
Locally here, it’s pretty much a non-issue with regard to interscholastic athletic participation now, and the school corporation has extended the requirement to the other high school in their system, as well as making the submission to drug tests a requirement for participation in other “school representing” extracurricular activities, such as band, orchestra, choral groups, the debate team.
Sometimes, it does seem to me that as long as such a program is used to identify confidentially a high school student with a drug-use problem, and the followup includes action to encourage any kid found with such residues in their system to get into treatment, doesn’t society, along with the drug user, benefit in the long run?
BTW, most of the high schools around here have pretty much a zero-tolerance policy in their athletic departments regarding underage drinking by student athletes–every year, we hear of at least one incident locally where athletes have been suspended, even dismissed from their teams for such.
There is an expectation (and this was the case long years ago) that a student athlete, certainly in high school, be of a higher standard of character than might otherwise be the case with the student body in general–after all, don’t we all remember how our schoolmates “looked up” (figuratively speaking) to the stars of the football and basketball teams?
Incidently, this same sort of policy exists in most, if not all, NCAA college and university sports departments as well.