Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

Today, Roberts Elementary art teacher Mindy Herrick returned to the classroom. This is a wonderful event for both the school and for Ms. Herrick. The students, staff, and parents have learned that people, when organized, can bring about positive change; and Ms. Herrick has been shown decisively that the events of the past few months have not damaged her reputation at all. With all the staff, teachers, and a large number of parents watching, Ms. Herrick came to the outdoor stage from inside the school while the speakers played the theme from "Rocky". People were feeling happy, relieved, and triumphant.

The next step is to change the policy of performing random drug searches in teacher parking lots. Of course, none of us want to have teachers or staff whose performance at work is impacted by drug use, and we don't want anyone on campus distributing drugs on campus to anyone else. But random searches in general, and demonstrably so at HISD, are not affecting either population. It seems that adding random searches is not an improvement over searches involving probable cause.

The concept of the probable cause requirement for a search/seizure is rooted in the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. The amendment requires the Executive (the police) in most cases to have more than a reasonable suspicion they'll find something before they can search a private area. As the link to reasonable suspicion points out, there are cases (such as a search for firearms) which have a lower threshold, but a drug search isn't one of them.

I'm not a lawyer, so this is all untrained speculation. It seems the Supreme Court has recognized that certain employers can institute random tests in Skinner v. Railway Labor Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989). Since then, it seems the number and types of employers instituting random searches has grown; I think that "safety-sensitive" has been more and more loosely construed, and more and more people are being searched by their employers. Clearly, HISD has decided they are comfortable their employees fit the definition.

I'm not sure that's reasonable. Of course, we want our kids to be safe; it's just not clear that random drug searches are preventing HISD employees from bringing drugs to school. (It may help prevent students from doing that though - they may not be as rational, nor do they have jobs to lose). Instead, in addition to paying our teachers poorly, and putting pressure on them to "teach to a test", the district is accusing them of being guilty until proven innocent of having drugs. Should they always work under that suspicion?

I have no sympathy for HISD employees selling or sharing drugs on campus. If there's reason to suspect that's happening, please, call in the dogs, and submit the evidence to the District Attorney. On the other hand, if you suspect someone of taking drugs they don't have a prescription for, maybe the right reaction is to figure out how to help them overcome the problem. If there is a problem (and the discovery was not a false positive) and they're an exemplary or even just an effective employee, especially if they've a long history of dedication to their job, maybe the first thing to do is treat them as a valuable person, and see if you can preserve the good in them by helping them overcome a weakness. If as an employer HISD were to find evidence of such a problem, I suggest it should first offer counseling before turning the issue over to the police.

The district should also determine if the drug use constitutes a potential danger to the students; that's a harder call, and of course it's just so much easier to automatically suspend or reassign anyone in such a situation. "Zero Tolerance" is a policy that potentially protects the district from lawsuits in the situation something unfortunate happens - but it's also potentially devastating to the employee, and that public vote of "no confidence" by their employer can make it difficult for them to return to their job. A friend of mine said Zero Tolerance means zero thinking, which can be an appealing approach if you want to implement what looks like an even-handed policy. But does a policy ultimately even protect the students, at such a cost? And what about all the other dangers adults pose to children?

Ultimately, it's my opinion that random drug searches, coupled with a "zero tolerance" policy, do not protect our children any better than a policy of vigilance and understanding. Vigilance will protect our kids from more than just danger from drugs; and understanding will be consistent with the concepts of rehabilitation and forgiveness found in most moral systems and religions.