ENG111
Counter-Argument Essay Final Draft
October 30, 2002
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads that the right of the people to be secure in their person, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Cornell). Claude Lewis’s essay “Naïve Court Didn’t Go Far Enough with Drug Testing” (Lewis 464) is another dangerous proposal to further impede this, one of our guaranteed rights. The Supreme Court (wrongly in my opinion) upheld the use of mandatory drug testing for student-athletes and Mr. Lewis would have us believe that random testing of all students should not only be encouraged but required. He attempts to sway the reader by use of unsupported statements of fact, alleged personal experience with those suffering from addiction and baseless opinion on connecting illicit drug use with crime. I believe that his logic is flawed as evidenced by his failure to present documentation to back up his claims and instead relies on the reader’s acceptance of his implied wisdom.
Mr. Lewis begins his essay by blaming the nation as a whole with the failure to control the use of illegal drugs in our society. The basis for this accusation is not included in his writing. Drug abuse is indeed a problem in this country, as it is in much of the world, but where is the connection between alleged society failure, public school students and drug abuse? The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas cites a “1996 Texas School Survey of Substance Use Among Students: Grades 7-12” by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuses (ACLUTX). Their findings reflected that students participating in extracurricular activities are much less likely to use substances. Mr. Lewis would have us believe that mandatory, random testing of the least likely students to use drugs would go a long way toward reducing substance abuse in our school children and collectively in our general population.
The Supreme Court’s 1995 decision (Veronia School District v. Acton) (ACLUTX) ruled 6-3 that schools may randomly test student-athletes for drug use. Their basis for this decision is: 1) the decreased expectation of privacy among student athletes, 2) the relative unobtrusiveness of the search and 3) the severity of the need. In 2001 the Court further upheld mandatory drug testing for students in all extracurricular activities in their 5-4 decision on Oklahoma’s Tecumseh Public School District policy (Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School District, Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls) (Drug Policy Alliance Web Site). Their decision was based this time on the premise that students represent the school when they participate in after-school activities, thereby forfeiting their right to privacy.
Citizens have a right to expect protection from drug abusers in certain aspects of life. Airplane pilots, train engineers, bus and truck drivers and even police officers should expect mandatory drug testing as a condition of their employment. But where is the need to be protected from the student athlete or the trombone player in the school marching band? A student does not relinquish his right to privacy when he enters the schoolhouse door. The presumption of innocence should not only be extended to those charged with a crime but also to those who stand accused of nothing more than wanting to play football or serve on the yearbook staff of his school.
Mr. Lewis cites the enormity of crimes that are connected with substance abuse. He provides no basis for this statement, cites no studies and assumes the acceptance by the reader. If one were to buy into this argument then we should also assume that prior to the proliferation of drugs in this country that we lived in a utopian society free from petty thefts, bank robberies and murders. We could also expand this hypothesis to include that the biblical account of Cain slaying his brother Abel was due to an abundance of addictive apples. Theft, murder, extortion, etc. are crimes that have always been with us and probably always will as long as mankind exists. That is unless Mr. Lewis and his contemporaries expand their intrusive searches to outfitting citizens with cameras and voice recorders to further insure our compliance with laws. The Drug Policy Alliance (a national organization that represented the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Education Association in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court) opposes drug testing as humiliating for students, as a deterrent to participation in extracurricular activities and for creating an environment where students lose trust of adults (Drug Policy Alliance Web Site).
Mr. Lewis discussed briefly the effect of drug experimentation that he has witnessed on young people. He once again blames government for failing to contain addiction and for its shortcomings in treating addiction disorders. I would ask what “government” is to blame? Is it the local school board for failing to identify and discipline any student athlete caught with substances in his system? Is it the city council or county commissioners who are faced with limited funds for education that have failed to divert some of these monies to student surveillance? Or is it the State or the Federal Government or perhaps a lack of direction from the United Nations? It is so easy to place blame on the invisible government yet so easy to evade backing this up with any type of substance to prove the blame.
Mr. Lewis in numerous instances in this essay cites evidence for which he provides no documentation. He trumpets young athletes acceptance of mandatory, random testing for substances but cites not one shred of evidence to this acceptance. He speaks of personal experience talking with addicted persons but offers no studies to back up his biased observations. Schools provide the initial exposure to illegal drugs he states but how are we, the reader, to accept this declaration as he once again omits any references to lend credence to his stance. The credibility of the author suffered extensively for lack of sources to support his arguments.
I, also, have a bias. I believe that mandatory, random substance testing is a violation of the fourth amendment in any forum that does not put the public at risk. This includes school districts that want to humiliate and embarrass its sports participants, marching band members and any student that wishes to join a school club. Of course, we all want our young people to be free of illegal substance abuse just as we wish them to avoid alcohol, cigarettes and shoplifting. But as we do not have the right to place a camera on them twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, we also should not be testing them, against their will, for substances that we do not wish them to have in their bodies.
There will always be substance abuse just as there will always be crime of some nature. Giving up our rights to try to combat the problem is not the answer. Education and a commitment to addiction treatment, I believe, would be the place to continue our efforts. Unfortunately, the few young people to who abuse prohibited substances are a price we pay to live in a free country.
Works Cited
ACLUTX. ACLU of Texas Position 26 October 2002
www.aclutx.org/pubed/positionpapers/studetndrugtesting.htm
Cornell Law School, US Constitution, Amendments, 25 October 2002 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html>
Drug Policy Alliance. Press Releases. 18 September 2002
<www.lindesmith.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr_september 18_02.cfm>
Lewis, Claude. “Naïve Court Didn’t Go Far Enough with Drug Testing”. The Contemporary Reader. 7th Edition 2002