Well I have done it again -- jump into the middle of a controversy. Recently the school distrinct that my son attends, Lampeter-Strasburg, has decided to do random drug testing of student who are involved with sports, music, extracirriculum and those who have a parking permit for their car. There was a task force established by the Board and the recommendation passed the board's approval.
To my shock, some parents rose in opposition. I shake my head, not understanding why they would be opposed. My conclusion -- naive or the think their kids are involved. For at least one, being naive is not an option. She is an educator, her mother use to be school super and she has advance degrees in education. So the second could be an option -- I do not know -- but it only makes sense! So I could not allow a few resistors speak up and make it sound like the ones who want to protect the school from a epidemic of drug use be the bad guys, so I wrote an editorial:
Why People Afraid of Drug Testing?
Dear Editor:
I find it fascinating that there would be parents resisting random drug testing at Lampeter-Strasburg HS and the only conclusion I can draw from their resistance is the fear of their kids getting caught. For wrong behavior to flourish you usually have “anonymity and opportunity.” Meaning people can sin without others knowing and the offenders have unaccountable freedom to get their hands on their choice of vice. Random drug testing turns the light on darkness; it bring accountability and diminishes both what is hidden and what is happening. Using the argument that “now some students won’t participate in sports and band” is reflective of a greater problem. If my child suddenly did not want to participate because of random drug testing; I would recognize that there might be a possible problem with my student and that they are hiding a possible drug issue. To illustrate - Is having filters on school computers, which limit students’ access to pornography, wrong as well and in some way unfair to students? Does that mean students will not participate in using the computer for study or research? Or does such safe guards keep a vice out of reach to that which is harmful to themselves, their fellow-classmates and the overall moral temperature of the school community? Avoidance of such accountability is folly and morally irresponsible not to provide such measures! The drug testing resistors are either naïve or afraid of their own kids being discovered as a violator. What is troubling to me is that one of the main resistors Pat Pontz is running for L-S school board director. I am not sure I want her in a position of influence, running interference for students and not thoughtfully considering the best way to bring about accountability in the schools and understanding her role to keep our schools safe and punish those who endanger the health of the learning community.
Jamie Mitchell
NOTE: The woman making all the noise against drug testing is the woman who was endorsed for School Board over me. I am not sure the GOP did a very good job in vetting their choice!