Board Of Education V. Earls Case Study

Studies as recent as 2001 have shown that 50% of 12th graders have been associated with drug use (“Frequently”). Schools have identified this to be a crucial issue, especially if it is a student who participates in extracurricular activities. Frequent drug use has caused schools to enforce drug test policies. The problem is, not everyone is on board with this new policy. To comprehend the Board of Education v. Earls case of 2002, one must interpret the history prior to the case, contemplate the arguments throughout the case, and recognize the significance of the case. This issue has caused enough controversy to make it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In order to understand Board of Education v. Earls case, one must first interpret the history

Earls case is to be able to contemplate the arguments throughout the case. One of the most crucial arguments The Board of Education claimed “there are “special needs” in public school context, including maintaining discipline and order” (Kim 974). Tecumseh School’s main focus was to maintain a safe and healthy environment for their students. In order to do this, a student’s privacy is limited in a public school environment (Edmonson). The state is responsible for their students and recommends them to have limited expectation of privacy. Earls argued her drug test results were improperly handled by district employees and were easily visible to other students (“Board”). In addition to Earls’ arguments, she questioned why students not involved in an athletic activity had to participate in the drug testing. Since none of Earls’ extracurricular activities involved athletics, she complained, “this test is just an unnecessary invasion of privacy” (“Before” 186). After both sides polished and presented their arguments, the jury came to a conclusion. “In a split 5 to 4 win, because the policy reasonably serves the School District's important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional”