Random Drug Testing

"I, Gregory Gillette, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey, and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the Governments established in the United States and this State, under the authority of the people. So help me God."

Each time you are elected to a school board in New Jersey you must take an oath of office, part of which appears in quotations above. After that, you are expected to promptly forget about it and are assured that if you are doing anything wrong, the board president, board attorney, board secretary, or superintendent will correct you.

That may be true regarding strict adherence to board policies and state laws, but what about new policies? Should you be compelled to vote Yes on a new district policy because the US and State Constitutions allow it? Could it not be that the other board members and school administrators answering Yes to that question are throwing themselves in with supporters of the fugitive slave laws or "separate but equal" provisions? Isn't shouting, "But the Supreme Court voted!!!" a little like Ralphie exclaiming, "But the BELL rang"? Do we really want to run inside and leave Flick's tongue stuck to the icy pole?

Which brings us to the first issue of consequence (other than the selection of a new superintendent - I will cover that in a later article) that I faced as a board member - Random Drug Testing. The push for RDT - a supposed deterrent to drug use requiring students to be placed in a pool from which a number of names would be drawn a couple of times a week for a urine test - had been bubbling up even before I was elected in April 2007. Rulings at the US and NJ Supreme Courts narrowly - by a single vote in each case - approved the concept despite vigorous opposition by parents in the Hunterdon Central Regional High School District.

That summer The Courier News printed a full page of stories on RDT and mentioned that Hillsborough was looking into it. On January 3, 2008, about 20 residents - and one surprise speaker - turned out to a school board meeting for a public hearing o RDT. The surprise speaker was the superintendent of the Hunterdon Central district which had recently enacted its own RDT policy which would become the model for Hillsborough and the approximately 50 (out of 600) districts that would adopt such a policy over the next 15 years.

Not only was the speaker a surprise to this board member and others but only the policy committee members had seen a draft of the policy. So the rest of us were in the dark. Nevertheless, we sat there and listened as the Hunterdon administrator proceeded to opine about the wonders of RDT. The most significant claim was that RDT would "change the culture" of Hillsborough High School - a baseless prediction designed to target the emotions of parents and community members (and board members) who really did want to find a way to help troubled students.

About 100 parents and students came to the next school board meeting three weeks later to oppose the measure. But of course, there was more professional support for the policy as the Executive Director of the Flemington-based Drug-Free Schools Coalition showed up in Hillsborough to tout the policy's positive effect on school discipline! This was also the meeting where the public learned that implementing the policy would only cost the district $9000 a year and that the cost would be covered by a federal grant.

In the end, the board passed the policy by a vote of 5-3 on February 25. Needless to say, I was one of the three opposed. 

To understand why I opposed the policy it is necessary to understand what the Supreme Court did when it allowed it. The essential question is not one of whether RDT would be effective in "changing the culture" of the district or even acting as any sort of deterrent to drug use at all. What we need to know is whether or not such a policy violates a student's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure. Whether a student, not suspected of drug use, can go to school feeling secure in their possessions - including their urine!

If there is no Fourth Amendment problem at all, the courts would have allowed submission to RDT policies to become a condition of school attendance. But that is not what they said. They said participation in RDT had to be VOLUNTARY. Students would have to elect to be part of the testing pool. If they refused to sign up the punishment could not be suspension from school. Instead, they could be barred from athletics, clubs, school dances, all extra-curricular activities, and even getting a parking pass for their car.

In other words, the courts were saying that high school is only the thing that happens in the classroom between 8am and 3pm and all else was something "other".

Even if you believed every other lie about Random Drug Testing (that it would change the culture, or would be a deterrent, or would only cost $9000) there is no way that you can relegate the high school experience to what happens between the first and last bell.

For more than a century, high school in America means sports and clubs as well as algebra and English. Driving to school and going to pep rallies is as much a part of the overall high school experience as dissecting frogs and the America Revolution. 

When the policy went into effect board members learned that we would actually be applying for a grant not for $9000 but for $123,000. But, no worries - that money could be used to renovate bathroom space in the Nurse's office. Another lie. That was prohibited by the grant. Instead, the grant was intended to send school employees to Washington where they could learn more about RDT. In essence, giving the grant money right back to the lobbyist swamp that created the push for RDT to begin with.

The school board revisited the policy in 2012 when the grant money was gone. This time the board had a recent school survey that showed that RDT had not acted as a deterrent at all.

Despite that, the board failed to remove the policy.

I am still right about this. Through the process, I learned more about Random Drug Testing than anyone would want to know. But more importantly, I learned in my first year on the board that it was much better to be in the minority and be right than it was to be in the majority for the sake of board unity.