Editorial: Appeal Testing Case

Editorial: Appeal Testing Case
Posted by FoM on December 05, 2000 at 09:01:51 PT
Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 
In our opinion, U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson erred when she ruled Friday that "the mandatory random, suspicionless drug-testing program for all students participating in extracurricular activities at Tulia Independent School District is violative of the Fourth Amendment."When Tulia's school trustees meet this morning, we hope they will vote to appeal the case. 
Other circuit court decisions on similar issues have been decided in favor of allowing mandatory and random drug testing, increasing the likelihood that Judge Robinson's decision could be overturned. This case needs to be appealed.In this case as well as a similar case involving the Lockney Independent School District, we have expressed support for mandatory and random drug testing for students who choose to participate in extracurricular activities such as athletics, band, choir, UIL events, work programs or clubs. We continue to oppose mandatory and random drug testing for all students.While the Fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches, we believe that it is reasonable to require a person who chooses to participate in an activity to submit to drug testing. Just as an employer may require an employee who chooses to accept a job to submit to drug testing, a school district may require a student who chooses to participate in an extracurricular activity to submit to drug testing.The Fourth Amendment allows mandatory and random drug testing when one voluntarily submits to an authority. Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (TX)Published: December 5, 2000Copyright: 2000 The Lubbock Avalanche-JournalContact: ajnews lubbockonline.comWebsite: Articles:Tulia School Board Eyes Possible Appeal School Loses Fight on Drug Testing Allows Student Challenging Drug Testing Drug Testing Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #9 posted by dddd on December 05, 2000 at 17:03:46 PT
Dan B,,,I saw 20/20 last night.They had a segment that told the Tulia story.I thought it was suprisingly balanced coverage of the situation.They had a few of the jury members on camera,and they were exactly like the people you spoke of. I would describe them as 'Texas natzis'.They were all of the same mindset,even a latino woman.They were asked if certain evidence would have been introduced in the trial,perhaps it would have changed their verdict.The answer was an immediate NO,without any consideration.It was chilling.These people made me ashamed to be white. I was born on the west coast,and have lived here all my life,and I am shocked to realize that there are actually people in this country who still hate. I guess I shouldnt be suprized that the creep who wrote this trashy article wouldnt even give their name....dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Smokeless in Seattle on December 05, 2000 at 14:55:14 PT
Are these people for real? So if I smoke MJ with my friends I can't sing in your damn choir? Then who needs it. The fourth amendment protects americans (and anyone who happens to be in america, at the moment, regardless of citizenship) from 'unreasonable search' - period. Like it or not. The founding fathers thought this very important, to not be harassed without reasonable suspicion, so much that they reasoned it would be better to let a few guilty people go free than impinge upon the rights of the people, in general. It's the price of freedom, pay it or go elsewhere!This editorial is garbage, and mocks the very foundation of our (USA) society. I will use a copy of it for my dog to poop on.SiS
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Dan B on December 05, 2000 at 14:08:40 PT:
About the Lubbock A-J
This particular newspaper is a fountain of fascism whose audience is Bible-belt middle America. I have written many letters to them over the years, some of them quite frank and even humorous, and all of them were accepted for publication. But, as soon as I sent a letter expressing opposition to their "coverage" of the Tulia situation, pointing out facts they deliberately left out of their articles, my letters stopped being printed. In fact, another letter I sent that was critical of the drug war was also rejected by them. Now they come along with this editorial (it was written by and/or endorsed by the collective editorial staff, by the way), and it's the same fascist policy: we hate anyone "not like us"; therefore, we punish anyone "not like us" for being "not like us." Lubbock prides itself in being "conservative," yet their version of conservatism is really fascism. People who live here claim that people from West Texas are the nicest people they have ever encountered, yet many of these same people have no problem with bigotry. I've never lived in a place that was so racially segregated. They literally had a law only a few decades ago that forced non-white citizens to live east of Avenue A, which is located east of the main part of town. In fact, the majority of the African-American community still lives in the eastern part of town, and many realtors here will not show a black family a home in a mostly "white" neighborhood. I'm not saying that everyone in West Texas is a racist, but racism is prevalent here. I have no reservations whatsoever believing that the Tulia drug bust was a deliberate attempt to strike fear into the African-American community, and I have no reservations believing that the people supporting random drug testing in Tulia (like these editors) are convinced that if they can get the "bad element" (read "non-white population") out of Tulia, the drug problem will magically go away. It's another way of asserting that drugs are "their" problem, so it will only affect "them."Of course, their hatred against certain minority groups has been transfered to hatred against all drug users (after all, those drug users [gasp!] associate with the minority groups). Okay, I'll stop my rant for now.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by michael on December 05, 2000 at 14:06:29 PT:
Good point
 I am sure most of us have thought about how the " underlings" are being tested by those who are not required to submit to this invasion. So what I'm thinking is, could there be a legal argument for stating " I will only submit to involentary testing if every person that has a hand in my testing is tested themselves. Including all mail carriers, secritaries, etc. The logic being of course, that one of these people could be high on marijuana or life or something evil, and be driven to taint my personal data. Well, as I read this back to myself, I had to chuckle. Does everyone feel my frusration?  
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on December 05, 2000 at 13:32:49 PT
Equal Rights
  Nobody ever thinks to analyze the urine of the people who thought up this policy. Or the school's administration. Or the Tulia Police Department. Or the president of the United States, whoever that ends up being. Or the Drug Tsar. It's always the people higher up on the authority food chain forcing those further down the line to give up their rights and dignity. Test the testers!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by michael on December 05, 2000 at 12:37:47 PT:
What did you say?
 What is the thinking behind the lubbock journal when they " oppose" one group of students being subject to random testing, and "support" another group of students being tested? If it's " for the kids", what is the difference? The constitution aside, it appears you are straddleing your own fence. Must be very painfull:-)   
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by dddd on December 05, 2000 at 11:55:27 PT
no one home
 One thing these type of articles have in common,,,,no,I guess there's two things they have in common. First of all,for some reason the writer remains anonamous,and hides under the newspaper. Secondly,this article,and many like it,tend to be written by complete idiots,,,no,,I take that back,they are not complete idiots,they were smart enough to not leave their name......dddd
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by dankhank on December 05, 2000 at 11:27:31 PT
>>The Fourth Amendment allows mandatory and random drug testing when one voluntarily submits to an authorityWhat the hell does THAT mean?The fourth amendment allows you to voluntarily submit to a mandatory test?The fourth amendment allows you to be forced to volunteer to submit to a UA?The fourth amendment allows you to be volunteered for a mandatory test?Those fools at the lubbockonline need to reread their crap.Then perhaps the same fools can submit to random UAs, themselves???
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on December 05, 2000 at 11:01:37 PT:
Repressive Bigots
Apparently this editorial espouses the viewpoint that they wish to continue to be repressive bigots in Tulia. It is certain that no town of comparable size in the USA has had the kind of press that they have had, by jailing a sizeable portion of their African-American populace or drug testing their youth with no probable cause. What is the message they are really trying to convey? Is it that they are more righteous than the rest of us licentious degenerates? My suspicion is that they harbor the same proportion of wife-beating drunks as in the rest of this fair land. They do excel in hypocrisy, however.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: