Family sues over school policy of drug testing:Says it keeps students from participating

Spokesman Review ^ | 04/18/2004 | Associated Press

[writer33]

TWIN FALLS, Idaho -- A family is suing the Twin Falls School District over its policy of mandatory drug testing for students in extracurricular activities.

Joe and Denise Stanzak, whose daughters Danielle and Anastasia are Twin Falls High School students, contend the policy is too broad and violates students' rights.

"The school district has created a policy that causes substantial harms to its students," Joe Stanzak, the family's attorney, argued in filing documents.

"The policy discourages from participation in student activities individuals who would otherwise benefit from experiences outside the strictly academic curriculum.

"Exclusion of students from these activities will seriously interfere with students' ability to gain college or university admission, affecting future employment, income, skills and abilities."

A school district spokeswoman said no one was available to talk about the lawsuit; however, school officials previously said they stood behind the drug testing policy.

The School Board approved it after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in June 2002 that public school students who volunteer for any extracurricular activities could be randomly tested.

The divided court said student safety supersedes student privacy issues.

The Stanzaks argue in their lawsuit filed in 5th District Court that Anastasia's refusal to sign a form consenting to random drug testing resulted in a low grade in band class.

The grade drop from an "A" to a "C" was only because of "her outspoken stand against random drug testing and her refusal to sign the consent form," the lawsuit contends.

The lawsuit also contends that Anastasia received a failing mark on the Direct Writing Assessment because her chosen essay topic was "Random Drug Testing in Schools." She had always passed that test, which teachers grade, before.

Danielle Stanzak opted to not continue in her band class as a result of the policy.

District Judge John Butler has scheduled an April 26 hearing to consider the Stanzaks' motion.

[Restorer]

The lawsuit also contends that Anastasia received a failing mark on the Direct Writing Assessment because her chosen essay topic was "Random Drug Testing in Schools."

Simple enough. Post her essay and let readers decide if a failing grade was justified.

[Ed_in_NJ]

School boards that think the Supremes' decision makes it safe for them to start these programs are going to be surprised -- there will be a lot more suits.

[writer33]

Sounds good to me.

But we all know this isn't as simple as that. It involves complicated teaching and student dynamics. Something only the courts can solve. So, my question to you is: "What the #$%@^ are you thinking? :)HA!

Just kidding. More sarcasm for your evening's enjoyment.

[Restorer]

Well, the homeschool kids do it regularly.

Every time the NEAzis try to prove that they are being abused and not being educated, the kids demonstrate in public hearings that they are more mature, articulate and educated than their critics.

Works every time.

[writer33]

Restorer. Stop thinking and react to the article. That's what the said journalist wants you to do. Now just stop it. Understand. :) HAHAHAHAHA!

[Restorer]

The horror. The horror.

How's that?

[motzman]

The grade drop from an "A" to a "C" was only because of "her outspoken stand against random drug testing and her refusal to sign the consent form," the lawsuit contends.

How about a compromise:

Allow drug-testing, with the understanding that any samples that "pass" the test must be consumed orally by the administrators requesting the test.

Sounds fair to me.

[Restorer]

Works for me.

Or maybe they should test the teachers and administrators too.

Surely a teacher on drugs is more of a safety risk than a high student.

[writer33]

All right, Restorer. Don't make me do a Howard Dean on you. I'm gonna roll up my sleeves now. And scream at you for a while.

I bet you're one of those narrow-minded, home-schooling, uncaring for the school children conservatives. I just bet you are. You don't REALLY care about children. Do you!

:) HA! A big pot of sarcasm for your evening.

[Arkinsaw]

Allow drug-testing, with the understanding that any samples that "pass" the test must be consumed orally by the administrators requesting the test.

Since it IS in a school I think that school administrators should have their desks searched, be metal-detected each day, have a camera on them, be forced to use clear brief cases, and be made to pee in a cup. They should also have their off-campus smoking monitored. If they have a butter knife on school grounds they should be suspended without pay. If they take an aspirin or a female teacher takes a Midol then they should be suspended. If they point a finger at anyone then they should receive counseling under the zero-weapons tolerance policy. If they bring a newspaper on campus it should be checked to see if it has any B-52 bombers pictured, any photos of soldiers with guns in it, or any other disturbing image. Female school administrators should have their underwear examined each day to make sure they are not wearing thongs.

In fact, perhaps we should extend these rules to ourselves.

[RBroadfoot]

This is a free country and we are a freedom-loving people.

Therefore, the children must pee in a bottle for inspection by the State.

[motzman]

In fact, perhaps we should extend these rules to ourselves.

You're right. What are we waiting for? It's for our own good, you know.

[Arkinsaw]

You're right. What are we waiting for? It's for our own good, you know.

If we are willing to teach our children everyday that this is normal and okay for the government to do to them.....we should let the government do it to us as well.

[Born Conservative]

[bt_dooftlook]

"Exclusion of students from these activities will seriously interfere with students' ability to gain college or university admission, affecting future employment, income, skills and abilities." Um, a couple of quick points - 1. Noone is being excluded - they can choose not to participate if so inclined 2. Band was cited as an example - if they are musically inclined then they can join other extracurricular music groups whose policy is more in line with their sentiments 3. We're talking about government schools here, aren't we? If students don't like the policy then they can attend private schools or be homeschooled. 4. If the parents object to these policies then they should express that at school board meetings and the ballot box, or vote with their feet. 5. If these girls fight this on constitutional grounds, then that should provide great references when applying for college. 6. Finally, drugs will screw them up lots worse down the road than missing a band class IMHO

[Arkinsaw]

If students don't like the policy then they can attend private schools or be homeschooled

Just because someone CAN attend private school does not give the government the free hand to do whatever they think best.

Just because drugs might cause more pain than missing band does not give the government a free hand to do whatever it wants.

Just as you can elect not to participate in band, you can elect not to vote, elect not to drive on the highway, and elect not to do a lot things the government manages. Just because you can elect NOT to do these things does not make government excesses in controlling it O-KAY.

[jnarcus]

Minor children do not have the full rights of an adult in the US...plenty of case law on that. Moreover, the random drug testing by various companies as well as school districts has been upheld by the Supremes---even if you disagree. There are laws on the books against using certain substances. Those can and are tested for. If one insists on exercising their freedom to use they will be arrested. It is really a very simple equation...if you don't want to be busted don't use. We ain't a libertarian society and hopefully never will be

[Arkinsaw]

plenty of case law on that.

Theres plenty of case law on lots of stuff. Plenty of case law on 2nd Amendment issues. Plenty of case law on the Ten Commandments. Soon to be case law on the Pledge of Allegiance. There are whole bookshelves of US Code on every subject under the sun. Not all case law is well thought out and appropriate for a free people....and getting less so every day it seems some time.

[Arkinsaw]

You might also consider equal treatment under the law. These policies, as they stand now, single out a special category of students for scrutiny. IMO the state has no basis for singling out said students other than the fact that they are easy to single out because they have some desire to participate. There isn't any evidence that band members, or FBLA members, or choir members are more likely to be drug abusers than those who do not participate in extra-curricular activites. In fact, common sense tells me, and probably you, that these students are in fact less likely to abuse drugs as a class.

I would be much less likely to complain about these policies if all students were equally treated under the law.

I find it vaguely disturbing that children who are trying to participate and better themselves are subjected to this while thugs who have no desire to participate are often skipped over by these policies.