The modern industrial world is certainly a complex place in which to live, learn, and work. Therefore, whenever a college’s administration proposes to address a problem with some sort of blanket policy, questions and criticisms are sure to follow. As I will describe, it is easy to pick a side (pro/con) and label those on the other side ‘idiots’. But before reaching such a conclusion it is worth pondering the actual complexities of the issues involved. For example, Linn State Technical College, a two-year community college geared mostly toward vocational training in Missouri has just imposed mandatory drug testing for its entire entering class. The tests screen for methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana and 11 drugs. Students who test positive can remain in school if they test ‘clean’ 45 days later. They also must complete an online drug-prevention course or are assigned to other, unspecified “appropriate activities,” according to the school’s written policy.
I had two immediate reactions to reading this (besides disbelief). First, this seems to be analogous to using a sledge hammer to hang a small picture. Second, this can’t be legal. What students would want to go to such a school? And this certainly violates a bunch of constitutional protections, right (!)?
I still stand by my reactions but think the policy is perhaps less idiotic than before. Why? Well first, the Chronicle indicates that many of Linn’s programs involve “hands-on training with heavy machinery, high-voltage electronics, and even nuclear technology.” I can see that for everyone’s safety it is better that students are not under the influence while learning to use a 30-ton tractor (“dude, I drive better when I’m high” loses some of its humor when someone accidentally knocks down a wall). And second, it seems that other schools apparently conduct random drug tests on students who are in fields that involve dangerous equipment. I don’t have a problem with a school drug testing students who are learning to become pilots or pharmacists). Nor do I have a problem with testing someone who is about to start student teaching in a 1st grade class. So the drug testing thing by itself isn’t a problem.
What Linn is doing is different because they are testing every student, including those just taking a course in English or psychology. Do these students really need to be drug tested? My instinct is that this violates our constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizures. Unless I am doing something illegal or potentially dangerous in public (and to a lesser degree in private), the government shouldn’t be able to require me to prove that I am not doing something illegal. Linn could argue that they have the right to decide who they admit as long as the decisions are not arbitrary or capricious and don’t violate anyone’s constitutional rights (I hope everyone who took law with me remembers this). People who have used drugs recently are not protected. If Linn required someone who was caught breaking a law or campus policy to take a drug test, I think that is fine as long as it is clearly stated that this will occur in the student handbook. Lin could also possibly argue that students could just enroll elsewhere but I believe it is in a pretty rural area and students probably don’t have much choice about where they attend.
The ACLU doesn’t believe Linn has the right to administer drug tests to all of its students and has sued (on behalf of 6 students) to stop the practice. The judge issued a temporary restraining order against the school. Linn’s new policy raises numerous other questions including:
Can/should all administrators and faculty also be tested? I don’t think there is any precedent for that. Does the fact that Linn is a technical school make a difference? It is still a public institution after all. I can at least see how this argument could be made, but it doesn’t sway my thinking. Am I old fashioned to think that students’ rights are not checked at the gates of their colleges (next to the welcome sign and pee cups)? And who is paying for all this testing (tax payers, private donor, or the students)?
It is likely that the folks at Linn asked these questions before moving forward with their policy. They must of been satisfied enough with the answers they reached to implement this policy.
Like
So, I have tired to ignore this post to some degree because it tends to hit a sore spot with me. I simply am amazed at the amount of rules, regulations, polices, and screenings that come into attending school and/or working.
ReplyDeleteAlthough you mention that the drug test itself is not the issue I would have to ask why not? Why and how do certain fields require drug testing over others? Do we feel better knowing that someone was screened for drugs? Is that just a false sense of safety? I think maybe it is.
Now, I am not sure of all the details of Linns policy but I did take the time to read the FAQs and one FAQ struck me...if you pass the initial drug screen then you will not be retested. The reason I point this out because is seems flawed. If you stay clean to pass your test then your good to go on with no additional testing. Or if you do not do drugs and then get into drugs after you pass your test your still good. Although Linn does state they will retest if reasons are given I wonder what those may be. Is it being to quite in class, lack of engagement, late work?
If we impose testing on students should we not impose it on our faculty and staff? Why should we test a student teacher if we have not tested the actual teacher? Now I am not at all advocating for testing faculty/staff but trying to point out the double standard. So, those are my thoughts on drug testing in this scenario.
Now regarding the listed questions. I do not think all administrators/faculty should be tested (nor students) because as referenced in the blog, did our rights get checked at the door? I think that this policy could be a gateway to additional information being requested or even worse (to me) required by the university. I have to say I feel like my institution knows more about me than my mom. My institution not only has my credit report and score, they have a complete background check. I am curious how much further institutions will be able to go if one does not question respectfully policies put in place by those who govern.
And yes, who is paying for this? Looking at the Linn State website it appears the student is responsible for the fees. I wonder if these additional fees are at all a response to the 7% cut Linn received in funds this year?
I would like to think that Linn asked questions and thought critically about the policy they have enacted but I must admit I have some doubts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe point Matt made above about drug testing every student being overkill is valid as well as the question raised about who carries the burden of cost. However, I agree with a mandatory drug testing policy beyond the specific programs that Matt mentioned due to safety concerns. I feel it is a disservice to students to collect tuition dollars if they include drugs as a part of their daily food group and if they are pursuing a degree in a profession that will mandate drug testing such as health care. An individual does not need to be going into a position with easy access to drugs such as a pharmacist to be facing clean drug testing as a condition of their employment. Even nursing assistants are required to test negative for drugs.
ReplyDeleteAt Aims, all Allied Health Programs require prospective students to undergo drug testing before admittance into the program and they are informed of this early in the process. This is in contrast to some private institutions such as Pima where tuition is gladly accepted with seemingly little regard to future employability. Nevermind the issue of investing financial aid dollars with little chance of return on the investment.
Drugs are scourge of the modern era. If wars have killed millions of people, and diseases and epidemics wiped out not an insignificant number of humans, the drugs are the third mass, which threatens earth’s population, it destroys all different ages from different social classes more than wars and diseases. Drugs are not just a regional problem, but it is worldwide problem. Also, millions of people are suffering from drugs addiction; it is a phenomenon with educational and social, cultural and psychological, health and economic dimensions. Moreover, reports from the United States of America and the official organization show that the spread of drugs covers the whole world.
ReplyDeleteThe health aspect: continued drug abuse to the state of psychological and physical and seriously affect the mind and behavior of the addict, and the effects differ from a substance to another in varied degrees of seriousness, and all this affects person relationship with the environment surrounding him, and leads him to laziness and inactivity.
Also, drugs are affect the social aspect it lead person to breakdown his family and the collapse of his social relationships and he will unable to do the basic individual requirements, which often leads (under the influence of drug demand) to the crimes of theft and robbery, and murder.
In addition, drugs affect the economic side without any benefit to any party. It is draining money and lead to the loss of family and individual resources, which consequently leads to poverty and bankruptcy, and drugs harm the interests of the states where the productivity will be reduced, and the agricultural area devoted for food will decline. Furthermore, drugs will increase the burdens of states in spending to combat it, for example, provision of staff and departments in several bodies such as the drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, Customs, prisons, criminal police and the Interpol, Frontier Corps, Coast Guard, judiciary forensic, awareness programs, treatment, and rehabilitation.
All of the above, drive me to support drug test from the first year of high school and before access to the university or to engage in the labor market in order to avoid falling of adolescents in the toxins of drugs and to ensure gaining a high quality of education. Let us imagine; if the student is under the influence of the drug what the education output will be?! From here, when we apply the drug test on high school students and they will be known that the test result will determine the type of education that they will receive and how many opportunities will be lost and the opportunity to access to the university or get a suitable job may will be missed. Thereupon, they will think a million times before destroying themselves with drugs.
Also, drug test must be implemented in universities and government jobs and non-governmental organizations on random base, and then any one will ensure the continuity in his/ her job or school, and we will make sure and guarantee the quality of productivity.
Thus, people knew that if they used the drug can be test detected easily, for the first time or even after several days or months of use, mostly they will refrain about experience it.
We all know that drug test is expensive, but the cost of treatment and its consequences will be much more. Spending some of the millions at the beginning of the adoption of this project in each country with enactment of strict laws to implement it will save thousands of millions in the future as a result of the reduced capacity of drug dealers to attract the largest segment of society which are the youth. Also, crime will be reduced in all its forms, and a decreasing number of departments responsible for monitoring the issues of drugs and many others.
Instead of finding solutions for results, we need to solve the reasons.
It appears that a judge has put a halt to the new program after a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.educationnews.org/higher-education/judge-halts-mandatory-drug-testing-at-missouri-college/
I understand the due process issues and illegal search issues that are at the core of the issues that the ACLU and many others have with this idea of drug testing. But I wonder why we can't expect students to be drug free, when it is a violation of law if they are taking drugs in the first place. Sometimes I wonder why there is more uproar over the testing than the taking of illegal drugs in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI think this issues resonates with me because when I was on Semester at Sea, we had a group of students who, knowing the "zero tolerance" drug policy chose to ingest a couple of different drugs in Cambodia. When students were back on board, we did both random and purposeful drug tests. Those who tested positive were sent home. And they acted victimized even though they had consciously violated the very clear policy.
I think we should be able to hold students to higher standards. I think that the student should know ahead of time what the expectations are and we should be able to hold them to those expectations.
I know that my view on this comes from the fact that I have never done any drugs and don't know where that desire comes from. I guess I am lucky, I lived a pretty safe and protected life while I was growing up. But I knew as a staff member on Semester at Sea what the expectations were and I lived well within those expectations and had an amazing time. The same goes for my undergrad experience which was pretty legalistic. Again, I knew the expectations and knew I could live within them.
The fact that the school in this article was a public school makes me know that drug testing would be unrealistic and would be a violation of due process. But I am asking, what is the downside of expecting more of students getting a higher education?