random-drug-testing

The following article does not take a strong stand on the issue of random drug testing in the workplace. The writer implies that a majority of the public has accepted that sort of testing.  The writer of the article, however, does remember a school policy that, she contends, was less fair than the random drug testing of student athletes. Older readers might recall a similar policy at their own high school. Younger readers will need to study carefully that antiquated policy, and then consider how it compares to the random testing of student athletes, a procedure that could receive a wider acceptance.

The process known as random drug testing has another less, flattering name. It has been referred to a number of times as “suspicionless drug testing.” The randomness of the drug tests mandates the testing of every student over a certain interval of time.  Subjects for testing are selected at rondom, thus inviting the testing of those for whom the use of drugs remains far removed from their everyday activities. In other words, those least likely to be suspected of drug use must acquiesce to a drug test, during the process known as random drug testing.

Despite its association with infringement on civil liberties, random drug testing has experienced increased use, especially in the workplace. That increase demonstrates the increasing corporate concern for matters of safety. A business would prefer to deal with a challenge to the legality of its drug testing policies, than it would to seek defense for the negligent act of a drugged employee. The safety of the workers helps to guarantee the efficient functioning of the workplace.

Random drug testing in the schools, however, has been far more controversial. Moreover, it has not received the same rapid acceptance that has been accorded to testing in the workplace. Some opponents of random drug testing of athletes in schools have pointed-out that such testing could persuade some students to forgo participation in sports activities. Studies suggest that a decrease in the number of students willing to devote time to sports activities could eventually lead to an increase in the number of students with drug problems.

While the writer of this article does not refute the truth of that observation, the writer asks the reader to recall, or perhaps discover, the method formerly used by some principals in order to stop students from smoking About 35 years ago the principal in one Pennsylvania high school wanted to root-out those students who were smoking in the restrooms. Therefore, he announced that anyone caught smoking in the restroom would be suspended. For an added measure of control, he declared that any student found in a restroom while another student was smoking in that restroom would also be suspended.

In other words, that principal chose to use “suspicionless suspension.” Surprisingly, in light of present-day attitudes, the parents of the students did not turn to the ACLU and seek to put an end to the policy. They seemed to think that the deviant behavior, the smoking, had opened the door to such a harsh and possibly unfair solution. It would be interesting to survey parents in that same region today, and to get their opinion of random drug testing. Would their thinking mirror that of their parents, or would they challenge the legality of the so-called, suspicionless testing?