Criticisms of SATURN Mirror Criticisms of Any Mandatory Student Drug Testing Policy

If schools' drug testing policies were held to the same rigorous standards by which the SATURN (Student Athletic Testing Using Random Notification) study has been judged, they too would be discontinued. The U.S. Office for Human Research Protection (OHRP) suspended the SATURN study because it denied students the real option of saying "no" to drug testing (OHRP 2002). By forbidding participation in athletics, the researchers and the schools forced students to make an impossible choice between participating in sports, which has a high correlation with admission to competitive colleges and often leads to sought-after scholarships, and preserving a modicum of privacy in the bathroom stall by refusing to submit to a drug test.

While the SATURN study fails to meet OHRP standards, at least one other study (Yamaguchi, Johnson, and O'Malley 2003) demonstrates two things: the possibility of carrying out an ethical study on an inherently unethical policy and the failures of mandatory student drug-testing policies.

Adil E. Shamoo and Jonathan D. Moreno's (2004) conclusion that the SATURN study design amounted to an unethical coercion of minors is on point, but their criticism would apply to any mandatory drug-testing policy in schools. As to Shamoo and Moreno's question of whether this study could have been conducted under prevailing ethical standards, Yamaguchi, Johnson, and O'Malley's University of Michigan study proves that an ethical epidemiological study of student drug testing is possible.

In contrast to the SATURN study, the Michigan study gathered its information from schools with preexisting student drug-testing policies. Interestingly, the Michigan study found that drug-testing policies made only a negligible difference in students' use of marijuana and other illicit drugs. For instance, 37% of twelfth-graders reported using marijuana in schools without drug-testing policies, a statistical dead heat with the 36% who reported using marijuana in schools with drug-testing policies. Similarly, 21% of twelfth-graders reported using an illicit drug (other than marijuana) in schools without drug- testing policies, and 19% reported using an illicit drug (other than marijuana) in schools with drug-testing policies (Yamaguchi, Johnson, and O'Malley 2003). Mandatory student drug-testing policies are clearly not as "coercive," in terms of reducing drug use, as school administrators think they are.

Policies of mandatory student drug testing are based on emotion, not evidence. The evidence cited above from the Michigan study, the largest-ever national study conducted, shows that drug testing fails to deter drug use. In the latest case on student drug testing in the U.S. Supreme Court, Board of Education of Independent School District 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (536 U.S. 822 [2002]), nine respected professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Education Association, and the American Public Health Association opposed mandatory student drug testing. Yet schools continue to spend scarce resources on drug testing. When schools are cutting music and arts programs and advanced placement classes, and are expanding class size, administrators cannot justify the outrageous cost (an average of $42 per test; Drug Policy Alliance n.d.) of conducting mandatory drug tests.

The ACLU opposes mandatory student drug testing in part because it wastes precious school money, it fails to deter drug use, and because the drug tests that schools use can result in false positives (Forensic Drug Abuse Advisor 1996; 1997). Beyond the policy considerations, however, the ACLU seeks to vindicate students' privacy interests and constitutional rights. Shamoo and Moreno's criticisms of the SATURN study expose the fundamental coerciveness, invasion of privacy, and breach of confidentiality that define any policy of mandatory, random drug testing in schools.

In the Earls case the ACLU represented an 18-year-old high school student, Lindsay Earls. Despite her acceptance to Dartmouth College at the time of the appeal, Lindsay Earls so strongly objected to the invasion...