By Katherine Poston, Reporter and Designer
The Homecoming Dance of the 2017-2018 school year ended with multiple students being tested for alcohol intoxication. Some tested positive and were reprimanded.
Although many students believe the test was random and possibly illegal, the school reserves the right to test students at extracurricular activities such as school dances. According to the student handbook, “VHS dances are drug and alcohol free. Students suspected of being under the influence will be breathalyzed and referred to the King County Sheriff. Students refusing to be breathalyzed will be denied admission to the dance and referred to the King County Sheriff.”
In this stance, the school used saliva tests rather than breathalyzing students. If the tests registered positive, the students were removed from the dance and their guardians were contacted.
According to principal Danny Rock, school staff must have probable cause to test students. This can range from the appearance of intoxication — things such as staggering, slurring of speech or irregular behavior — to smelling alcohol on a student’s clothing or body. If there is suspected use, the student’s behavior will be monitored before a test is administered.
Some students believe that specific groups were targeted for testing for reasons external to their behavior at the dance and complained that all students should have been tested.
However, according to Principal Danny Rock, both the alleged scenario and the desired scenario would go against school policy.
“You may not random[ly] drug test students in a school setting, and you may not universally drug test students in a school setting,” Rock said. “You may only drug test students if you have a reasonable suspicion.”
Some students had concerns that the saliva test strips used at the time could have shown false results due to expiration. The test strips were used on Oct. 21, however, the expiration date was in August 2017.
“The test strips are not intended to be … ironclad proof — they [are] merely a part of the collection of evidence which includes observation, conversation and what the student reports,” Rock said.
Students were also concerned that the school had the ability to test students without the consent of a legal guardian. Although guardians were eventually informed, the testing occurred before the school contacted the parents.
After the event, students expressed a concern that the schools actions were illegal, as they had not made it clear to students that they have the right to refuse testing. However, according to Rock this is not true.
“Students don’t have the … right to refuse to be tested,” Rock said. “Students who refuse to be tested would be defiant. They would be insubordinate and in defiance of a school administrator, [prompting us] to do something. According to school policy, if a student is defiant of a school authority two times in one year, that can be grounds for long-term suspension.”
This can be interpreted in many different ways. Because “defiant” is not defined by any actions in the school handbook, disobedient behavior of any kind can be considered defiance at the administration’s discretion.
“The most clear evidence of their [alcohol] consumption is them saying ‘Yes, I had a drink tonight,’” Rock said.
Students caught drinking or intoxicated were penalized with an in-school suspension.