Three years ago this month, the nation went into panic–perhaps the highest level of panic with the most profound impact in our lifetimes before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. There had been a rash of school shootings from 1997-99, but nothing like this: two disgruntled teens walking into school armed with shotguns and pipe bombs, killing 15 (including themselves) and seriously wounding 23.

Adults had been scared of kids before, hearing stories of rampant drug abuse since the ’60s and gang warfare since the ’80s. But Columbine brought it home to suburban America, and with the powerful political voice of the middle class, changes took place quickly.

Zero-tolerance policies spread like wildfire. A witch-hunt went on for students showing any signs of eccentricity. And, perhaps out of frustration from the inability to control the unknown, almost every school district in the nation at least considered some kind of randomized drug testing.

Such changes can help one understand why a Supreme Court that 33 years ago proclaimed that “students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate” is now going to uphold mandatory, randomized drug testing for all public-school students participating in any extracurricular activities. From the soccer team to the chess club, the marching band to the school newspaper, everyone who does anything more than is mandatory will be fair game.

The case at hand is Board of Education vs. Earls, argued less than two weeks ago before the United States Supreme Court. Earls, who went to class in the small Tecumseh School District in Oklahoma, sued the district for invasion of privacy in its mandatory drug-testing requirement for extracurricular activities, a policy in place at the school since 1998. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy last year; barring a major change of heart by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court will reverse when it announces its decision early this summer.

So why should we be concerned? Certainly, on its face, drug testing of students could be beneficial in identifying problems early on. With the federal government’s advertising campaign linking drug use to terrorism, minimizing the drug market is clearly in the best interests of law-abiding citizens.

But the impact is not that simple. For the students, extracurricular activities are often billed as the best way to get off drugs, to get away from negative influences. In the Tecumseh School District–and many more, once its testing program is upheld–that option is closed to the students who need it most.

This poses another question: Since the students who use drugs are most often not those who are involved in extracurriculars, shouldn’t school districts test everyone? Seven years ago, the court upheld drug testing for high-school athletes, because drugs pose unique risks for them. With testing for everyone in extracurricular activities, that justification is gone; the next logical step for panic-driven school districts is drug testing for all.

Judging from the court’s recent history, this testing will not be contained in public school districts, either. The court has cited the drug-testing-for-athletes case in several fourth-amendment cases in the last three years, using it to uphold complete vehicle searches with the slightest hint of probable cause (Wyoming vs. Houghton, 1999) and the ability to search and arrest for violations as minor as not wearing a seat belt (Atwater vs. Lago Vista, 2001). Armed with even more ammunition in this assault against the fourth amendment, what more can we expect from the Supreme Court in coming years?

We certainly cannot expect that drug testing will be limited only to public school districts. As parents and politicians become even more paranoid about “the drug epidemic,” there is no reason for their concerns to end when kids graduate high school; if anything, they should be more concerned about drug use when these sheltered children go off to college. The precedent has been set: If they can force students to undergo drug testing for participation in extracurricular activities in high school, they can certainly demand that colleges with public funding test their students.

For the sake of campus riot-control teams everywhere, I hope that day will never come. But make no mistake–the Supreme Court is in the process of laying its foundation, and with every drug-testing decision the possibility of both expanded testing and fewer fourth-amendment rights inches closer.

This trend can be traced back to a number of sources: the overarching War on Drugs, inner-city gang violence and, most of all, the acts of two teenagers with shotguns and neo-Nazi beliefs almost three years ago. How ironic, then, that these violent teens’ dreams of fascist revolution should come to fruition–not in the form of a violent revolt, but in the policies of frightened parents and a Supreme Court bent on eliminating student privacy.

Matt Lynch ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English and political science.