The American track and field athlete Marion Jones competed in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. There, she won three medals, one in the 100-meter, one in the 200-meter, and one in the 4×400-meter relay, but not one was she able to take home. Jones was caught using performance-enhancing drugs, specifically THG (an anabolic steroid). As a result Jones was stripped of all her medals from the 2000 Olympics and sentenced to six months in prison. Although many of us will never make it to the Olympics, most of us participate in high school or even collegiate sports. While many believe that drug testing should not take place as it is an invasion of privacy, but drug-testing should play a role in higher level sports.
In the New York Times article, “Ten Supreme Court Cases Every Teen Should Know” there is a case based on student Athletes and Drug Testing. According to the article in this packet that shares the Vernonia School District v Acton (1995) the writer shares the bottom line: schools can require drug testing.
In the article, James Acton, a 12 year-old student at the Washington Grade School in Oregon was suspended from sports for the season due to his parents refusing to let him be tested because there was no evidence of such substances. His parents went on to then sue the school district, arguing that mandatory drug testing without any suspicion of such activity constituted an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment.
The Supreme court ruled in favor of the school as a way to keep school campuses safe and keep the athletes away from drugs. The court displayed that all students surrender privacy rights while at school and must follow school rules.
Most high school kids display signs of becoming addicted to prescribed drugs. Although this would come up as a flag in the sports-drug testing, prescribed drugs would get a pass. Students with written prescriptions could be separated so they wouldn’t get flagged among the other students.
The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma School district is a policy that requires all students 7th-12th to consent to a urine test for substances in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. This practice has been applied in different ways such as only competitive extracurricular activities which faced heavy backlash when the students’ parents brought this action up, alleging that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment The court upheld the suspicion less drug testing of school athletes.
Though some students and parents might say that requiring students to provide a urine sample is an invasion of privacy among student athletes , the question becomes, should the parents be able to override it? When you go to school your parents are still in charge of you and your decisions. Although in this case the school had higher authority. For someone with a well-rounded unsuspicious kid, the question is, should drug testing be required? If there is no reasonable suspicion the testing should hold off. Drug testing should be required once a student athlete shows signs of using substances.
Although many parents and students feel this way, is it fair to treat every student differently? If you are signing up for a high school sport you should expect to spontaneously be drug tested no matter your situation. If there is no evidence that the student is using drugs or alcohol there won’t be any trouble or consequence for the student and all they would be required to do is pee in a cup. This proves the student is not guilty in any suspicious circumstance while keeping all athletes on the right path.
