Creighton Prep (Catholic boys' school in Omaha) to require drug and alcohol tests for students

[Brickbat]

Creighton Prep will begin mandatory, random drug and alcohol testing for all students at the start of the 2014-15 school year, officials announced Wednesday.

The testing will involve collecting hair — about 60 strands — from the heads of selected students and testing it for evidence of significant drinking and a variety of drugs. The testing can detect drug and alcohol use dating as far back as 90 days.

Prep has hired Psychemedics, an Acton, Mass.-based firm, to conduct the testing. Plans call for testing most students — 80 percent or more — over the course of a school year.

The testing program is the most extensive among metro-area schools. Public schools cannot require drug tests, based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Whoops, forgot the link: http://www.omaha.com/article/20140108/NEWS/140109081/1685#creighton-prep-to-require-drug-and-alcohol-tests-for-students

[bigwillq]

1. Will they also test the teachers? (nt)

[zbdent]

2. comical ... I thought all those kids attending Catholic schools were supposed to be

waayyyyyy smarter than public school kids.

You'd think they wouldn't be doing sh*t like that.

Oh, and is sacramental wine exempt from the drug test? You know, like in communion?

[Brickbat]

3. The article does say it won't detect "a beer after hunting or a glass of wine at a wedding,"

so presumably that kind of use is OK.

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. The 4th Amendment protects public school students, but not private ones.

Federal courts view drug tests as a search under the Fourth Amendment, with a warrant or probable cause required, with some limited exceptions, like public safety workers and some classes of students (athletes, those in extracurricular programs). Private schools have no such protections.

This is also why your private employer can drug test you (absent a negotiated labor contract barring it), but the government can't drug test people on welfare (without probable cause).

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

5. Why test, wouldn't this come out during confession?

[warrant46]

8. Only if the Priest reported it to the higher ups

Maybe they can force the Priests to report drug use.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

7. Romansist? Really?

So now we're using bigoted prejudiced words on DU? The only people I have heard use that term are the klan and Ian Paisley.

[warrant46]

9. Do you hang around with Ian and those other guys

Just wondering since you are really attuned to their lingo ?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

10. What?

It's called being informed and reading a book. Because I know of bigots and the hate they spew, that means I associate with them? What idiotic logic.


I guess if I call someone out for being a racist I associate with racists.

[warrant46]

12. Sorry I didn't realise Dawson Leery was a Racist

I will avoid him/her from now on I have already blocked the racist

And sorry I offended you

[ForgoTheConsequence]

14. I didn't say that.

But that word IS bigoted. It was historically used to attack working class immigrants from Ireland and Italy. Why are you defending hate speech?

[JHB]

13. Well, it seems you're expected to defend yourself from this complete crap

At Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:36 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Do you hang around with Ian and those other guys
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4298464

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS:

Accusation of being RWer. Ian Paisley was one of the most visible anti-catholic bigots in Northern Ireland. Saying that ForgoTheConsequences must hang out with his crowd because he "knows their lingo" is like calling a black person a Klansman for knowing all the slurs white supremacists use.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jan 8, 2014, 09:41 AM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with alert
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree with reasons given by alerter
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: ForgoTheConsequence should be able to respond. Thus far the discussion is civil and doesn't rise to the level, in my opinion, of over the top or offensive.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[NightWatcher]

11. private school right? Then the parents are free to send their kids elsewhere

No problem with that.