American Kaiser Justin Weitz chimes in on the court ruling regarding random drug testing for those who participate in extra-curricular activities. Throughout my years in high school, I never participated in any formal extra-curricular activities and while my high school years may not have been all they could be, I certainly enjoyed myself. People who use drugs are even more likely to enjoy their high school years (the effects won't really hit them to a degree they'll notice until a little later) and less likely to care about extra-curricular activities. Of course, a joint or two will make little difference to the band kid who gets kicked out of band because of it. Perhaps then, once kicked off, he'll make the most of his illegal-drug-user status and move on to the heavier hitting stuff. He's got more time on his hands, right? The publicization of his drug use will even make him more popular with the druggie crowd, too. It's okay, though, right, cause then all of his friends will know better then to even try drugs cause they might face the same fate as the fallen drummer boy who they now see hanging out with the cool kids smoking pot across the street from the school. Or, more likely, they'll cross their fingers and hope they're not tested, and if they do form a support group called Pot-Smoking Former Bandpersons Anonymous. Until they are infiltrated by the druggie-using-counter-culture who'll recruit them across the street, where they will then smoke pot and laugh at the other band members living their mundane, sober and clean lives.

I make light of the subject, but seriously, what are they trying to accomplish here? Presumably they want to keep people from using drugs. Will random testing really help accomplish this goal? Anyone who is scared enough of being randomly chosen is likely to be too scared to take drugs anyway. The risk-takers will just play the odds and hope they're not chosen. If they are, they are kicked off the team or band or the school paper. It will unlikely have a stigmatizing effect unless the school goes out of its way to publicize the students "disgrace," in which case my playful scenario above will become less playful and, in a less cute way, applicable. The kids' good influences will be angry with him and his bad influences will consider him one of their own. Other kids who are curious about drugs will have someone they know they can go to in order to find out more about getting them, and everyone loses. If it's not publicized, then it's likely only to have a punative effect on the student far worse than the pot he was smoking. The only ones who would likely learn from his example are the ones that would be unlikely to do drugs to begin with.

Texas has a no-pass-no-play rule that says if you don't pass your classes you can't play. The effect of this was that a lot of people would fail a single class, get kicked off the team, and then start making unrelated trouble that they wouldn't be making if they were on the team. When I was in school, I saw some very talented players who were never on the team because of this rule and were always in trouble until they were old enough to drop out, at which point I never saw them again. It became enough of a problem that they shortened the suspension from six weeks to three. The F's that these students got hurt a lot more in the long run than the weed they smoked while flunking. Either widespread casual drug usage is widespread or not. If it's widespread, then you're going to cause a great shortage of people in extra-curricular activities (which tend to bolster school pride and self-discipline) and create more of the apathetic, do-nothing youth that drives older people nuts. If it's not widespread, then isn't this a solution in search of a problem?

That being said, I think that the court made the right decision. There is no inherent right or obligation when it comes to extra-curricular activities. Since it's not compulsory, you're not forcing kids into a situation where they will be tested. It's not a right because there are a number of ways you can be disqualified from participating. You can be too slow for the football team, short for the basketball team, or interesting for the chess club. Extra-curricular activities are a choice and a priviledge. As such, the school has the right to impose any obligation (that doesn't involve discrimination) that they see fit. From a constitutional standpoint, the rule is valid. So, I must reluctantly admit, the Court's ruling is correct.

But the rule is still stupid.