Read this recent article about random drug testing in public schools. "When we begin acting against the innocent in order to find the guilty, we have abandoned one of the main tenants of a free society, and have, in fact, become a police state. If the is ever to be a victory in the War on Drugs, it should be achieved without sacrificing the life of the Constitution in the battle." The teleological approach would say the ends do justify the means. The deontological approach would say how we get to a result is equally/ more important. Which approach did the judge take in this case? How will it impact drug use at schools? Which is more important in this case: potentially effective anti-drug policies or the rights of the innocent?
Kyle Jimenez
9/8/2010 01:50:36 am
The students rights to justice are being violated. There is no reason for the administration to test students who are active in the FFA or choir in my opinion. I believe this is an act of dictatorship because they want the right to control everyone in what they do regarding activities outside of school.
Wendy Jacobo
9/8/2010 04:32:55 am
the rights of the students is more important than the anti-drug policies because they do not the the right to do that. i think this is an act of dictatorship because nobody has the right to take over anything, even if they were doing drugs i belive it is none of their business.
Ihtisham Khan
9/8/2010 12:54:23 pm
I think the rights of the students are more important because students might feel violated. The schools are just trying to keep the kids safe, but why would you drug test students in choir or FFA. The students have rights like the people who run the school and if students don't interfere with the teachers or the board of the schools life, why should the school care what the students do outside of school?
Dillon Jones
9/8/2010 01:31:45 pm
i belive it would minimize or abolish drug use at schools, because many students will have to be more cautious to not get into trouble with johnny law. i belive schools should have a strong anti-drug policy because students have the urge to do illegal things and will keep those students in check.
Claire Lee
9/8/2010 01:54:05 pm
Fortunately for the students, the judge took a teleological approach and decided that this case could be considered unconstitutional. Though I believe random drug testing of high school students is an invasion of privacy, it only makes sense to test all students in an extra curricular activity as opposed to only those in athletics if a decision is made to do so. The entire situation would only become worse if testing without suspicion was individualized.If it were ruled that students could be randomly drug tested, it would certainly inconvenience a school's population but students who currently partake could easily find a way around it if need be.
Chelsea Hoff
9/8/2010 03:09:35 pm
I believe that respecting the students personal rights and testing for drugs under suspicion only is more important than producing potentially effective anti-drug tests at random for students. The school was taking a teleological approach on the subject, which will lead them to the result they desire, although invading the student's personal rights and testing them without suspect is hardly fair. The judge took a more deontological view on the case, and put the drug tests on hold, recognizing that the school has the wrong motives and is going about the situation in the wrong manner. Although testing everyone for drugs will give the school a result of the students under consumption and will decrease the amount of drugs in the school, it is an invasion of ones personal freedoms. "the court recognized that random, suspicion-less testing is a serious violation of privacy." If the school tests the kids without any legit suspicion or proof of drug consumption, than it is a violation of their personal freedoms. "Teenagers have a greater self-consciousness about their bodies," Cantil-Sakauye said, "so monitored urination, like any search of the body, has the potential to cause embarrassment and humiliation."
Emily Lider
9/8/2010 04:45:36 pm
In my opinion, I feel that the Judge took the Denotological view towards the use of drug testing in schools. Cantil-Sakauye wanted the people to have an opinon and say in the motives, unlike the schools first move towards the Teleological motive to test every student, not matter what activity they are involved in.Cantil-Sakauye wants the students to have a fair chance in the argument, since it is their bodies who are at the cost. In this article, the students innocence is the more important matter. Students who are not marked as "suspicious" are being tested against their will. This is not a good example of a deonotoligcal which our government runs off of. As stated before our governments "ends justify the means" and this cannot happen if the people aren't heard. Students who are targeted "at risk" are the ones who should be tested and have the anti drug policy in effect. If the students who are "at risk" are tested with the anti drug policy, it will be a fair situation and allow for both the innocent to be happy and the people who need to be tested interrogated.
daisy lopez
9/9/2010 12:36:48 am
i think students have the right to do whatever they want outside of school so invading their personal life like that is not right. i mean it can help others if the school finds out out their doing serious drugs. i'm against this but i can also say is right but i feel stronger about saying that is none of the schools bussinness to know what goes on outside of skool. Comments are closed.
|
Mr. LPart teacher/part entertainer/ part coach/ part task master Archives
November 2014
Categories |