Drug Testing of Student Athletes Essay Sample

Drug maltreatment is a major job in our society as a whole and progressively within our young person. In recent old ages. many school territories have implemented pupil athlete drug proving plans within their schools. Athletes were targeted because student sports are voluntary and the “athletes are frequently held to higher criterions than other pupils. maintaining their classs up for example” ( Tantillo. Wen & A ; Morgo. 1995. p. A22 ) .

“The issue of drug testing has caused a national argument that still persists. The argument flexible joints on the right to privateness of the jock and whether such testing is constitutional under the U. S. Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable hunt and seizure” ( Siedentop. 1998. p. 149 ) . This issue has been presented in forepart of many tribunals. ensuing in different opinions.

A pupil athlete drug proving instance. in an Oregon school territory. resulted in a U. S. Supreme Court hearing. In the Vernonia school territory all pupil jocks. between the classs of seven and twelve. were required to take part in the drug testing policy. Harmonizing to Phelps at the Washington Bureau ( 1995 ) . the compulsory uranalysis required male childs to supply samples at urinals. with instructors watching from behind. while misss had instructors listening outside stables as they provided their samples in private. Drug instruction seminars or suspension from the squad for two athletic seasons were the effects that one faced if their trial consequence was positive.

One 7th grader. James Acton. disagreed with this policy and refused to subject a urine sample. Acton’s rebelliousness resulted in his being thrown off of the football squad. With the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union. Acton and his parents filed a suit. claiming that James’ Fourth Amendment rights were being violated. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 determination ruled against the Actons. happening that “public schools plagued with drug usage among pupils can necessitate their jocks to subject to drug testing” ( Phelps. 1995. p. A05 ) . In a White House statement following the opinion. President Clinton supported the court’s determination stating it “sends precisely the right message to parents and pupils: Drug usage will non be tolerated in our schools” ( Phelps. 1995. p. A05 ) .

Even though the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of pupil athlete drug proving. in 1995. many province tribunals have since ruled otherwise. In August of 1997. New Jersey tribunals issued a keeping order to forestall the implementing of drug proving policies for pupil jocks by the Ridgefield Park Board of Education. ( American Civil Liberties Union [ ACLU ] . 1997 ) . The ACLU of New Jersey filed a suit on behalf of a pupil. claiming that “the drug proving plan violates the province constitutional prohibition on unreasonable hunts and seizures” ( ACLU. 1997 ) . In the preliminary hearing. Judge Moses concluded that ” the ACLU was likely to win on its claim that random drug testing of pupil jocks would go against their right to be free from unreasonable hunts and seizures” ( ACLU. 1997 ) . In September of 1998. The ACLU of New Jersey announced that the Ridgefield Park Board of Education agreed to get rid of its random drug testing policy ( ACLU. 1998 ) .

“Random drug testing of pupil jocks can seldom. if of all time. be justified under the New Jersey Constitution. ” ACLU Staff Attorney Rocah argued ( ACLU. 1998 ) . In add-on to New Jersey. other provinces have ruled likewise claiming that like New Jersey their province fundamental law has been “historically interpreted… as supplying greater protections of single rights. peculiarly in the country of hunts and seizures” ( ACLU. 1997 ) .

Rita Sklar. Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas asserts that the “Fourth Amendment ensures that all Americans will non be treated like felons merely to catch the few felons among them. The same should travel for immature Americans” ( ACLU. 1997 ) . School functionaries should non go against a student’s privateness without sensible intuition that they have done something incorrect. It is this suspicionless. random hunt that the ACLU finds to be a misdemeanor of the Fourth Amendment. Oppositions of these drug proving plans find it unneeded because “if school functionaries have ground to believe that a peculiar pupil is utilizing drugs. they already have the power to necessitate that pupil to subject to a drug test” ( ACLU. 1997 ) . Drug instruction plans are seen as an option to proving. It seems far more practical to “spend money to learn childs skills… that will promote them to do good determinations instead than… disbursement that money on drug testing” ( Valenti. 1995. A21 ) . Judy Shelton. !

coordinator for New York State’s drug consciousness plan “Action On Target. ” stresses that “drug use is a job in likely every individual high school… with jocks and non-athletes” ( Valenti. 1995. A21 ) . Education. non proving. is the reply.

The U. S. Supreme Court has already established that “students in public schools don’t have the full scope of rights they can finally claim as adults” ( Tantillo et al. . 1995 ) . Therefore. random drug testing may non be seen as unreasonable and as a Fourth Amendment misdemeanor. Advocates for pupil athlete drug proving agree with President Clinton that “drug usage will non be tolerated in our schools. ” Athletes are frequently function theoretical accounts for the remainder of the pupil organic structure and it is of import that they set a good illustration for others.

In decision. I believe that there are both negative and positive facets to random student athlete drug proving. We do non desire our jocks to experience violated. guilty. and wrongfully accused. yet. it is of import that we make certain our jocks are puting a good illustration for others. All jocks should pattern a healthy life style. including remaining drug-free. For this ground. I feel that the positive effects surpass the negative 1s. and drug testing should be implemented into school sports. every bit good as. drug instruction plans for all pupils. Through athletics pupils will non merely larn athletics accomplishments. but besides the significance of duty and how to do mature and healthy determinations.

Plants Cited


American Civil Liberties Union. ( 1997. August 26 ) . NJ Judge Blocks Testing of Student Athletes.

American Civil Liberties Union. ( 1998. September 24 ) . NJ School District Abandons Random Drug Testing Program.

Phelps. T. ( 1995. June 27 ) . Drug trials OK: schools can necessitate them of jocks. Newsday. A05

Siedentop. D. ( 1998 ) . Introduction to Physical Education. Fitness. and Sport. California: Mayfield Printing Company.

Tantillo. M. . Wen. M. . & A ; Morgo. J. ( 1995. July 03 ) . Keep the childs clean. Newsday. A22.

Valenti. J. ( 1995. March 28 ) . In New York. educatio

Leave a Comment:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Be the first to comment