Scorecard

Courting Controversy

No right-thinking person would argue against the precept that deterring school-age children from using drugs and alcohol is a good thing. And last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling, which allows junior high and high school athletes to be randomly tested for those substances, may accomplish that in isolated cases. But the imposition of such tests represents a clear threat to an individual's rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court overturned a 1991 federal appeals court ruling that involved a seventh-grade boy at a Vernonia, Ore., junior high whose parents refused to allow him to be tested for drugs and alcohol as a condition of joining his school's football team. The Supreme Court said that athletes are "role models" for their peers and, as such, should be held to a higher standard. It also asserted that mixing drugs and sports can put the athlete at greater risk of injury during competition.

Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion contended that "the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high." But is that risk higher than the one posed to a student operating a lathe in shop class? Higher than a student behind the wheel in driver's ed.?

The Court's role-model argument is even more dubious. Are athletes role models for other students? Sometimes. So are leaders of student government (sometimes), spelling-bee champions (sometimes), budding thespians (sometimes) and rock-and-roll guitarists (sometimes). At a recent high school graduation we witnessed, the student who received the loudest applause, including a standing ovation, was a young man who had never participated in interscholastic sports but had won science and math awards, sung in the glee club, played bagpipe in the school band and delivered the valedictorian address. By virtue of his accomplishments, should he have been drug-tested? Of course not.

In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor correctly concentrated on the violation of Fourth Amendment privacy implicit in the Court's opinion. Young people shouldn't be asked to surrender their Constitutional rights for the privilege of playing a sport.

Lucky Bounce

Anyone who has been around pro golf is familiar with the monotonal review a touring pro delivers in the press tent after his round. "On 3, I hit a two-iron stiff from 220 yards for a birdie...on 12 I hooked a driver off the tee but got up and down from 100 yards..." etc., yawn, etc. But Senior Open winner Tom Weiskopf (page 40) deserves a special commendation for the understated wrap-up of his first-round 69 last week. Quoth Weiskopf: "My next birdie came at number 6. I hit a driver, played a second shot with a one-iron, pulled it to the left and unfortunately hit a lady in the head, split her head open. The ball bounced back toward the green in the rough. I pitched that up about a foot from the hole. Made birdie."

What Weiskopf didn't say was that he spoke to the woman, found out she was O.K. and later sent his caddie back with a souvenir ball. Turns out he won by four and didn't need the assist.

The Tarango Fandango