Mandatory drug testing and its bind to student rights
...e courts suggest that as long as the school district perceives some drug problem in its schools, drug testing of any student of any time would be permitted (Rosato 1).” Under the court ruling, the school also gained the right to search lockers and desks. Rosato believes that students loose certain rights when they are at school even though she points out that the courts have said that student’s constitutional rights are not, “Shed when they enter the schoolhouse gate.” The author fears that schools will eventually start treating students like,”prisoners,” and start censoring and punishing innocent acts. The major claim by Rosato is not that drug testing is violating a student’s rights; it is that she believes that these experiences will impair the children’s ability to become thinkers and affect their learning environments. Rosato states,” In the end our students may be sober, but their spirits will be broken. They will be fearful of authority and distrustful of their teacher and peers. The students will follow the rules simply to avoid punishment, not because they embody the better moral choices.” Rosato poses a negative view towards the Supreme Court rulings. She believes that the Court’s ruling does not give students the respect they deserve and that there must be other ways to solve violence and drug use without violating people’s rights. Rosato uses many examples of Supreme Court rulings as a basis of information in her editorial but none of them were specific enough to know which case produced these decisions. The information was very generalized and non-specific. In the entire article, only one quote was used and the source of the information was not revealed. Rosato makes many statements pertaining to mandatory drug testing but no evidence to back it up. The author is guilty of hasty generalizations such as claiming that testing students for drugs will break their spirits, make them fearful of authority, distrustful of teachers and peers, follow rules to avoid punishment not because they have the better moral judgment, and poorly prepare the child for life. Although this may be true, she offers no evidence to support these claims, if there is a correlation between drug testing and the student’s mental health, or if students are actually exposed of these symptoms. Larry Stevens, a writer for the “Lubbock Avalanche-Journal,” holds a supporting view of the drug testing issue. Stevens states that, “It would be fine if the high court will allow tests for students who choose to become involved in extracurricular activities. That has been our position for years.” Stevens discusses how he believes that athletes should be tested for drugs because he feels they are more likely to take drugs then students in non-physical activities. “The problem of drug use by students is a serious one that does not appear to be improving in our nation. Random drug testing would obviously be a deterrent to drug use by student (Stevens 1).” Stevens believes that drug testing will be a deterrent, but a deterrent does not help a student with a drug problem. He explains that parents will also benefit from student drug testing because they have the right to know if their child has a substance abuse problem. Parents also have the right to request drug testing of their child, which would be conducted, by the school (Stevens 1). Even though Stevens is in favor of drug testing in school, he also questions whether students whom are participating in activities,”Should give up privacy to do it?” Stevens article, “Drug Tests,” can be conceived as biased and very opinionated. Throughout the article Stevens uses the words “us” and “our” but does not specifically elaborated on whom he is representing. Stevens view on drug testing can be conceived as biased because the drug testing issue occurred locally in his community. A local school district in Lubbock (one of the first cases) went to the Supreme Court with a case involving drug testing of athletes, which was considered constitutional in 1995 (Stevens 1). In 1998 the Supreme Court ruling stated that their procedure was unconstitutional because it singled out students (Stevens 1). Stevens' tone towards the incident appears negative and disagreeable. His position was positive towards the testing of athletes but his position became fickle when it involved certain groups such as the chess club. This would be a strong argument why he would be biased because in his community, the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow only athletes being tested and t...