Here are a few passages from the NPR report I heard on the morning of April 21:
Redding says her whole body was visible to the school administrators. She kept her head down so the nurse and the secretary couldn't see her fighting back tears.(snip)
In its brief, the school says the fact that Redding was an honors student who had never been in trouble before is not evidence of good conduct, but only evidence that she had never been caught.
The school views itself as a protector of its students' health and safety, which includes protecting students from both illegal and over-the-counter drugs.
(snip)"Children call their private parts their private parts for a reason. They not subject to exposure, to observation by school officials. When children are strip-searched, they experience trauma that's similar in kind and degree to sexual abuse," says Wolf.
School lawyer Wright counters, "We just have to ask ourselves, as a policy matter, do you really want a drug-free environment? And if you do, then there are going to be some privacy invasions when there is reason to suspect that those drugs are being dispensed on campus, that they're being used by students."
Here's what upsets me about the school's argument:
1) There was no presumption of innocence for Miss Redding. Indeed, the presumption seems to have been that she was guilty. They boldly assert that fact that she was an upstanding student who had never been in trouble only meant that she hadn't been caught. I shudder to think how they would have treated a student with average grades who had been caught passing notes once or twice. Imagine if the adults in your child's school consistently expected the worst from them and their peers, regardless of their previous conduct! Furthermore, do our children loose *all* their civil rights at the school door? I understand the need for some curtailment of rights, however this seems not only ridiculous, but shameful.
2)
"The school views itself as a protector of it's students' health and safety..."Hmmm... Miss Redding suffered both emotional and phsyical harm (ulcers) from the strip search. But they made darn sure she wouldn't harm herself or any one else with ibuprofen pills! This infuriates me. Without a doubt, I would have experienced a strip search at age 13 as akin to a sexual violation. They did NOT protect her from the far greater harm. They inflicted it.
3)
"School lawyer Wright counters, 'We just have to ask ourselves, as a policy matter, do you really want a drug-free environment? And if you do, then there are going to be some privacy invasions...' "Basically, they are arguing that a totally drug-free environment means "nerdy" 13 year old girls -- and thus everyone else -- are subject to strip searches on the flimsiest of accusations. Really on the basis of gossip alone. (Miss Redding was accused by a former friend who, in all-too-common "mean girl" fashion, was eager to prove her break from Miss Redding to her new crowd.) I say no. A totally drug-free environment is not worth that. My high school, a good, middle class, small-town school, was not drug free, but I felt safe there. Even if I had felt threated by some of the drug activity (which I did not; the drug-using kids kept to themselves), imagine how much greater my fear if I were given cause to believe that any whisper said against me could mean I had to take my clothes off in front of the school secretary?
And in case you thought it couldn't be worse, the school's lawyer asserted before the court that even a body cavity search -- a body cavity search! -- would be permissable in this circumstance. I kid you not.
I'm dismayed to read that the justices seemed to be more sympathetic to the school's arguments than to the girl's. Perhaps not surprisingly, only Justice Ginsberg seemed to grasp what kind of impact such an experience could have on a young girl. (It's buried in a long audio clip, but basically she responded to a male justice who insinuated that 13 year olds are often cavalier about nakedness. She chided that maybe 13 year old boys are like that, but 13 year old girls certainly are not!) In any case, the prevailing thinking seemed to be better kids be "embarrassed" than kids get killed. Seems like a stretch to me; we're talking ibuprofen, not anthrax. Even if the drug under suspicion were marijuana, I would want to see a higher level of probable cause for such a search. Drugs like meth, heroin or cocaine get trickier, but is there not room for *some* level of common sense?
I await the courts decision. If they come down on the side of the school, I will be less likely than ever to send my children to school. In any case, I'd have to take a good long look at their drug-enforcement policy, then just hope they don't exercise their "right" to violate my child. Nevertheless, my ability to protect my own children is small comfort in the face of millions of children who will not be so protected should the court decide that an innocent child's emotional well-being is a reasonable sacrifice in the war on drugs.
