Back in my days in high school (yes, ancient history), if a student appeared drunk or drugged, they were sent home, and sometimes reported to the police. Those students who were drunk or drugged were suspended for a couple of weeks and then eventually allowed back. If they were repeatedly drunk or drugged, they were referred to the state’s attorney office and rehabilitation programs. Back then we did not have random drug or alcohol testing of students. The reason why was not hard to find—it was against a student’s rights and did not solve the problem. Back then people realized the actions of some should not be used as an excuse to punish all.

    That seems to be what is happening with the case of St. Viator High School in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The school has instituted a policy of randomly testing students for alcohol consumption. A student at random will have some of their hair cut, and that hair will be sent to a laboratory. If the hair tests positive for alcohol, then the student will face disciplinary action. The disciplinary action will become worse if that student is still found to contain alcohol particles in their hair. I have serious problems with this on a number of fronts. First, it is violating the rights and privacy of any and all students. Second, I am not sure how accurate this test for alcohol is. Even if it is accurate, how much alcohol must a student consume before they are considered “legally” intoxicated? Finally, this procedure is assuming that all students are guilty until proven innocent.

The American Civil Liberty Union was successful in preventing public schools from doing something like this (that, and according to many public school officials, the test is “too expensive”). The only exception to this rule is testing students who are engaged in extra-curricular activities on a daily basis. If students are drugged or drunk they could be a danger to themselves or to other sports players. Regardless of whether a majority or most parents approve of this procedure, the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that it is the civil rights of the individual that must be protected, and not what the majority thinks. I also have to question if this testing really works. If a student takes a medication that might contain a certain amount of alcohol in it, could this appear on an alcohol test? The danger of the approach I am seeing here is that what happens in one private school might encourage other private schools to follow suit. And if this occurs, then could this not also put pressure on public schools to try some modified policy of this random testing? I am thankful I am not going to high school anymore.