ACLU Battles Lynn State Technical College on Mandatory Drug Testing0

By Theodore O. Lawrence

A federal class action lawsuit was filed on Wednesday by the American Civil Liberties Union charging Linn State Technical College with violating their students’ right to privacy by forcing them to submit to drug tests. At this publicly funded university, even attendees with clean academic and criminal backgrounds are made to undergo urinalysis at their own expense, which could potentially reveal other private medical conditions such as pregnancies and current prescriptions. This is information that students have a right to protect according to the ACLU. Though the policy was halted by order of a Federal District Court Judge just a few hours after the suit was filed, the case is yet to be decided and could represent a wider change in thinking about the way universities can treat their students.

“This case goes beyond Linn State. We filed our complaint in federal court not to just stop Linn State, but to stop any other college that thinks they can drug test their student body,” writes Will Matthews on the ACLU blog.

This new policy requires all first-year students as well as those returning after a semester or more of absence to pay $50 for the test. Those testing positive after their first go around will be required to re-submit in 45 days. If the results are positive again, students will be dismissed without even the benefit of a refund on their tuition fees.

This is a highly contentious issue. Conflicting statistics range from a 6% reduction in drug use for schools using mandatory drug testing (Institute of Educational Sciences) to an increase in drug use by 2% (Monitoring the Future). This begs the question: Is mandatory drug testing even effective in the first place? Urinalysis screenings are designed to map certain trace elements remaining after the breakdown of target substances. A SAMHSA 5 panel, for example, tests for 5 drugs (marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines/methamphetamines, opiates and phencyclidine) by taking two samples of urine. A preliminary immunoassay on one sample is conducted and if markers for any of the five drugs are found, the second sample is submitted to a gas chromatography test to confirm the presence of any markers indicating drug use.

These markers are called metabolites and part of the reason for the ineffectiveness of mandatory drug tests is the nature of metabolites themselves. In the case of almost every drug on the panel except for marijuana, the metabolites disappear within as little as 12 hours to as long a week. THC, on the other hand, metabolizes slowly through the break down of fat stored in the body and is detectable up to 45 days after consumption, arguably making the least dangerous substance the only one urinalysis effectively detects. And with the right preparation or access to clean urine and a Whizzinator, almost anyone can pass a drug test, even monitored. This makes urinalysis less a test for illegal substance use than a marijuana detector, which isn’t proven to succeed at deterring anyone from using drugs in the first place.

Regardless of the greater civil rights ramification, these tests are unfair, and raise concerns even for those who don’t to drugs. In order to prevent the incursion of false positives (the presence of target metabolites due to non-illegal substances), a complete medical history is required from the participant. Students therefore need to be questioned on everything from headache pill use to birth control, and involves revealing personal information that typically remains between a doctor and their patient. This represents a civil rights outrage affecting students across the state and, depending upon the outcome of the trial, publicly funded universities nationally.

“This is an invasive policy that requires people to submit to tests that reveal private and intimate things like medical conditions or whether they are pregnant that people have a right to protect,” said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri in a recent press release.

If colleges are really concerned about the welfare of their students, providing access to substance abuse counselors and drug awareness education in the classroom have been shown to be cheaper, less invasive, and quite possibly more effective ways of tackling drug dependency issues.

Linn State Technical College had claimed that their mandatory drug testing policy was motivated by safety concerns due to the heavy machinery some students use. However, many of those that were required to take these tests had no contact with such machinery as part of their coursework. In addition, many accidents can be blamed on fatigue and stress rather than on substance abuse, so alternative safety measures, such as PC-based performance tests that cheaply calculate a person’s ability to maintain their baseline scores, would be better employed.

Given that this is a clear infringement of civil liberties and privacy, and that the burden of expense is being passed on to the student body, the ACLU hopes that the first public university to require mandatory drug testing of students will also be the last.

Rothert adds, “A person’s privacy should not be invaded like this, especially when they have done nothing wrong.”