Drug Testing at St. Edward

[Michael Deneen]

As you may have heard, St. Edward (along with Ignatius and Gilmour) are implementing mandatory drug testing for all students next year.
Not coincidentally, the head of the drug testing company is brother of the St. Ed president.

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... rt_m-rpt-1

Since these are private schools, there are no constitutional issues.

I'm curious to hear how the folks of Lakewood feel about this.

Are you surprised by this?
Do you think this is something Lakewood schools would ever consider?

[Grace O'Malley]

I certainly hope not. It's a civil rights issue. Of course, if you choose to attend a private school, you follow their rules or go elsewhere. Personally, I would never allow a child of mine to be drug tested by anyone other than our own physician. Too much information in the hands of a for profit is dangerous.

Why am I not surprised that the company has a connection with the head of the school? IMO, this is a money issue masquerading as "concern" for children. If a school suspects a student is abusing drugs, they can meet with the parents. To subject the entire student body to this invasion is wrong.

As someone mentioned elsewhere, had we been tested at out Catholic high school back in the 70's, we'd probably all test positive.

[Bill Burnett]

St Ed's sent out an Email to it's alums

Dear St. Edward Alumni,

You might be aware that some news outlets have raised questions about St. Edward's choice of Psychemedics to conduct our drug testing, given that my brother is the president of the company. At Monday's after-school meeting with our faculty and staff, I told them about that connection. To clarify, our policy when a conflict of interest arises is to fully disclose that potential conflict of interest to our Board of Trustees. It does not automatically preclude someone (a school) from hiring a firm. I disclosed that relationship from the outset of our Wellness Committee work to our Board of Trustees. They decided to move forward with Psychemedics based on the overall strength of the product, the fact that they had worked with a few hundred schools, and that they had the most comprehensive FDA approval for head and body hair testing. Below is the statement that went out today from Dan Geib, our board chair, in response to media inquiries:

" Whenever there is a potential conflict of interest, it is important that there be full disclosure of that potential. From day one, members of the St. Edward Board of Trustees were informed of the relationship between Jim Kubacki as President of St. Edward High School and Ray Kubacki as CEO of Psychemedics.

A committee at St. Edward High School spent two years investigating the question of drug testing students. The committee included members of the board of trustees, administration and a member of the faculty.

The decision of the committee was to proceed using hair follicle testing versus urinalysis because of three key factors that are important to our approach:

1.) Hair testing is the least invasive method for our students
2.) Hair testing provides a wider window of detection
3.) Hair testing is a more accurate process

At the time of the decision, Psychemedics Corporation was the only FDA-approved hair tester in the United States, and had an established schools division with a proven track record for effectiveness in schools similar to St. Edward.

St. Ignatius High School and Gilmour Academy conducted their own research and arrived at the decision to contract with Psychemedics independently of St. Edward High School."

- Dan Geib, Chair, St. Edward Board of Trustees


Sincerely,

Jim Kubacki
President

[Stan Austin]

I was first alerted about this by an email from my brother, a Gilmour alum. I read it with some incredulity.

Up until now I had the highest regard for the commitment to excellence which these three schools deservedly had. Unfortunately, this seems like a real low rent stunt which totally contradicts any assertions of intellectual respect that these schools previously might have had.

Stan Austin

[Grace O'Malley]

And they are presenting it as if they are doing it out of concern for the children.

First, we can debate on end over parent responsibility. A parent should notice behavior differences in their child and know if they need intervention or psychiatric help. But, considering some parents are clueless, or incapable of dealing with the issue, the school has become, wrongly IMO, the next point at which help would be offered to the child. If the school or teacher notices unusual behavior that indicates drug use, they should deal with that individual - have them see a counselor, meet with the parents, issue conditions of continued attendance, or whatever. But to subject the entire student body to this is wrong on so many levels and it smacks of an ulterior motive, which is usually money.

Do these schools have drug and drinking problems? Absolutely. They always did. I've said before, I attended 12 years of Catholic school and I know for a FACT that we were as bad, if not WORSE, than the public school kids. Yes, we were doing drugs and having sex at the same rate as the public school kids, despite our parents thinking that tuition money they were spending was keeping us "safe" from these evils. Kids are kids. Parents who send their kids to these schools believing that it will keep them from experiencing some of these social things are completely deluded. Perhaps they control the classroom better, but they don't control the hormones or the immature reasoning faculties of teens. The kids doing drugs will clean up for the summer, take the test, falsely reassure mom and pop that their darling isn't on drugs, and get right back in the action as soon as the test is done. It will NOT lower drug use by a kid determined to use drugs. Its a false sense of security.

People are saying - let the kids get used to it because in the working world they will be drug tested. Oh my, let them get used to having their rights violated and being treated like sheep? Just Wow.

Unfortunately, this policy will not prevent drug abuse, nor will it prevent the the occasional, and tragic, loss of a young life. It's no different than sticking your head in the sand. Addiction, depression, and mental illness aren't going away and they are difficult to deal with. Even if you provide professional help for the truly addicted, the rate of cure is relatively low. No screening programs like this one have ever been shown to actually help the user.

[Danielle Masters]

Grace, I rarely agree with you on here but I must say I whole-heartedly agree with everything you said.

And yes they are a private school, they can do as they please but also parents are free to remove their children. I find this idea at these schools very disconcerting especially given how drug use is a criminal action in this country. I am solidly in the camp that says we need to decriminalize drug use and focus instead on true rehabilitation.

[kate e parker]

if a student tests positive will that reflect on his/her permanent record?

the whole idea of this is crap.

[Gary Rice]

Yes, illegal drug use is criminal and wrong, and in no way would I advocate in favor of that issue. The question in my mind would be whether universal drug testing itself is unconstitutionally criminal and wrong.

There are two very fundamental Constitutional principles involved here; one being the right to privacy, and the other being the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty. It is my understanding that the government cannot compel a personal search without a court order or probable cause, because of that very Constitutional presumption of innocence.

Having taught these fundamental Constitutional principles for many years in public and private classrooms, I would therefore have two concerns:

1) First and foremost, educators and school administrators in our country, whether public or private, have a responsibility to teach and exemplify American values, and indeed, to model that example for the students charged to their care. Compelling a hair sample from an otherwise innocent person without probable cause implies a presumption of guilt, rather than of innocence. Then too, there is much more personal information available to a potential examiner regarding everything from a student's race, medical issues, and many more intimate facts relating to a person's DNA that can be gleaned from a hair sample. Virtually every aspect of personal privacy is therefore destroyed when someone surrenders his or her hair to a scientific test.

But then, there is a bigger, and arguably even more scary issue here, at least to my way of thinking:

2) How can we, as Americans, presume and respect the "right to privacy" of a private school to make whatever rules they may want to make, but then- ignore the privacy rights of those individuals attending that school? Are we to therefore assume that an organization's rights, as a private institution, supersede the constitutional rights of an American individual? How does that make sense?

Perhaps this is a question for attorneys and magistrates to work out, but in my opinion, this issue involves serious political, religious, and ethical questions that are well worth pondering.

Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin: Those who would trade their freedoms for security will get neither.

Back to the banjo...

[Bill Burnett]

The parents of the students have every right to refuse the drug test. All they have to do is take their kids out and send them to a public school. These are not public institutions so there are no constitutional issues at all. Nobody is forcing them to send their kids there.

[Gary Rice]

After further research on my part, it would appear that indeed, students and parents do not necessarily have the same rights in a private institution as they do in a public school. I suppose I knew that, but did not fully comprehend the reason why.

According to what I have learned, and I may be wrong, agreements between parents, students, and private schools are generally covered under contract law, meaning that parents and students must agree to abide by rules and decisions that the private schools make.

Again, not being an attorney, I don't know any of the legal ins and outs of this, but it would appear to me that once you've affiliated with a private school, you'd better do what they want you to do.

Back to the banjo...

[ryan costa]

One of the incentives for people sending their children to established private schools

is that even if their teenagers do some drugs, alcohol, or sex...

it will be among a more acceptable group of people.

An completely effective zero tolerance policy would erase this advantage.

[Michael Deneen]

Wow, the story is getting some national attention.
The liberal online show "The Young Turks" did a segment on it.
The host committed a grave error, saying that St. Edward was located in Cleveland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D4v0St ... M73A0ZjYjQ

[Corey Rossen]

Growing up here in town, I always thought the controversy was whether St Ed's bussed in their athletes.

I have never heard of any other controversies surrounding the school. I hope this does not impact the quality and caliber of students attending and looking to attend the school.

Corey

[Paul Schrimpf]

Wow. That was a waste of five minutes.