In late April, three Northeast Ohio catholic schools — St. Ignatius, St. Ed’s and Gilmour Academy — announced new mandatory drug testing for students. Incidentally, as we first reported, the president of the company selected to administer those tests, Psychemedics, is the brother of the president at St. Ed’s and an Ignatius grad himself.
While parents and the community debate the program, so too do the students.
Below is an op-ed written by Benjamin Seeley, a senior at St. Ignatius and editor of the opinion page at the school’s newspaper, The Eye. Seeley’s op-ed was not published by The Eye, however — it was spiked by Ignatius officials, deemed “too seditious,” as Seeley says, despite opposition from faculty moderator Mark Pecot and editor Alastair Pearson — so we’re publishing it here.
His arguments: Alcohol is a far bigger problem among students, and pot is far less dangerous than alcohol; the school failed to communicate with the students directly, rather issuing statements to the media and writing letters to parents; drug testing has failed as a deterrent to student drug use. Do read.
A Contemptibly Misguided Attempt at Reform, by Benjamin Seeley
Each year begins on a similar note: at orientation we hear the same spiel about drugs and alco-hol (as undeniably we should), punctuated by Dean of Students Mr. Hennessey’s dismay toward alcohol’s status as the Ignatian drug of choice—which is, again, an undeniable truth.
Certainly one would conclude that the remedy to such a reality would be an effort targeted directly at curbing alcohol abuse. But instead, the administration has decided to drug-test the student body, which given the recent rise in heroin and opiate abuse around Northeast Ohio seems, on the surface, sensible.
Yet only on the surface. Recall that our school’s most pressing issue isn’t opiates, but alcohol. So, in a move that appears to contradict logic, the school has launched an offensive that will simply turn former drug users onto undetectable substances—namely alcohol. Although little research exists on whether drug testing increases alcohol consumption, common sense indicates we should expect grave consequences from the looming spike in drinking.
But alcohol’s nationwide legality must signify its standing as a preferable—albeit undesirable—substitute to drugs, right? Well, yes and no; it depends on what drugs we’re talking.
A study released in December by UC San Diego and the University of Pittsburgh comparing the effects of alcohol and marijuana on the adolescent brain found that teens who reported having consumed as few as five drinks per week were found to have less healthy brain tissue, which can manifest itself in stifled attention-span, memory, and decision-making. And what about those using marijuana, the thought-to-be next healthiest drug (or rather, least worst drug)? Contrary to what the school’s policy would have you believe, there was no harm found at all.
I’m not asserting that the school believes marijuana’s risks to health are tantamount to those of heroin. The school, of course, isn’t claiming that. The point is that in some ways the policy will actually exacerbate the status quo by leading to abuse of far more dangerous substances.
There’s no refuting that kids using heroin or opiates need to be offered help, but there’s also no refuting that the number of those kids pales next to those indulging in the markedly less hazardous substances like marijuana. So by pushing marijuana users to alcohol, the school has just counterintuitively placed students at risk. But increased drinking is only a fraction of the problem.
Ironically, research shows that mandatory random drug testing, which constitutes the entirety of the Welfare Initiative’s timeframe following the initial testing, isn’t even remotely effective at combatting drug use. A study by the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Public Policy Center found that instituting mandatory random drug tests in high schools had no impact on student drug use for males (and a negligible one for females) and that the testing worked only to further the divide between administration and student.
We have to ask whether or not the administration failed, either consciously or negligently, to ex-amine all available evidence before launching the program. I suppose getting students off drugs for the three months before testing begins is a defensible end, but the demonstrably ineffective policy itself is an unequivocal mistake.
Which brings up the school. You see, the school should not assume responsibility for student health; that is the place of parents. The initiative shows signs of noble intent, but it wasn’t necessary in the first place. If the school is concerned about drugs, and feels oversight is the only solution, it should recommend parents themselves administer the tests.
What’s more, the legal ramifications of testing are more serious than the administration has let on. The school’s goal of confidentiality may actually deceive those who test positive, as the ad-ministration admits: the test results may spread beyond the student, parents, and counselor. For if the student later finds himself in legal trouble, a judge could legally subpoena the results and legally use that evidence against him. Perhaps the tests aren’t harmless after all.
Consider the violations of personal privacy. If the school has to go out of its way to identify these people, what verifiable harm have the “offenders” committed? The point of drug testing should be to aid victims of indisputably drug-induced complications, not to bring users to the school’s notion of justice—even if that justice isn’t punitive. The school forgets that a good-natured goal doesn’t rule out the possibility that the goal’s enforcement is a breach of basic liberties.
Encroachments on privacy aside, the costs of such a wide-ranging operation ought to be examined. At a conservative estimate of $30 per student, upwards of $45,000 will have been spent on drug tests in toto—fifty grand that could have supported financial aid, renovations to the school, or, quite fittingly, drug education.
What’s perhaps most unsettling about the issue is the idea that in the face of a body of evidence against drug testing, the school opted to do so anyway. It just doesn’t make much sense that we, Gilmour Academy, and St. Edward would sign on to a plan as misguided as this one. Or maybe it does.
In case you didn’t hear: the head of Psychemedics—the organization conducting the drug test—is none other than the brother of one St. Edward High School President James Kubacki. And not only that, but CEO Ray Kubacki is a Saint Ignatius graduate.
Of course, this is in no way to accuse St. Ignatius (or St. Ed’s) of indubitable wrongdoing, but the fact remains that the closeness of the relationships is troubling. And considering that silence with students has become a sort of trend for issues uncomfortable to the administration, I think a cogent response delivered to the student body itself is in order, and not one sent secondhand through emails to parents or statements to the media. Though the administration has been vocal about the policy with the Plain Dealer, the fact of the matter is that students are the ones affected by the policy, and students are the ones owed an adequate defense.
As the evidence makes readily apparent, there’s little rationale for school-wide drug testing. Because opiates lag far behind drugs like alcohol and marijuana among St. Ignatius students, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that opiate abuse was a pretext for the testing. The case has become such that we have reason to be legitimately skeptical of our administration’s intentions, and a lack of communication with students isn’t helping. Furthermore, I have a call to rising students of St. Ignatius, St. Edward, and Gilmour Academy alike that I, as a graduating senior incapable of assisting directly, hope to see put into action by all of you next year:
Demand that the school offer worthy explanations to you for their choice of drug-tester, and a response to why substantive pieces of evidence against drug testing were ultimately tossed out.
By taking a stand, as collective student bodies, against the injustices our administrations have pressed upon you, you refuse to be made pawns of a system and refuse to be disrespected by your purported leaders. The schools owe you proper explanations, and until you get those you oughtn’t be following the school blindly.
Stay strong, students.
This article appears in May 7-13, 2014.
Very good article
Benjamin Seeley has a good point the drug being abused the most alcohol will rise.This is nothing more than a shady deal by Psychemedics (CEO Raymond Kubacki) & St. Edward High School President James Kubacki. They will both profit at the students expense. I wonder how many other alumni have under the table deals such as this?
Nicely done, but not surprising it was not printed. My alma mater was never big on public dissent.
A well-written piece, and he makes some very valid points. I give him a lot of credit for a well-written piece and putting his work out there like this. Personally, I’m disappointed that this was not published in The Eye, because we should have discussion about things like this. All that being said, however, I do have some commentary of my own in reply.
Testing for drugs isn’t going to turn all the students to alcohol. Alcohol does less damage than does heroin or any harder drugs do, and those are the kind of drugs that this testing is supposed to target. If someone is doing marijuana (an illegal drug, but where I feel the author is most concerned), then the chances are pretty good that they are also illegally drinking. It makes no sense to assume that someone who smokes marijuana wouldn’t be drinking already; if you’re okay with doing something illegal, chances are you’re also okay with doing something a little bit less illegal but still extremely similar.
Schools should not have to assume responsibility for a student’s health, but they are basically forced to. Many parents, instead of keeping their sick children home, will send them to school anyways so the parent won’t have to “waste” a vacation day or make alternate arrangements. Schools, then, are forced to be responsible for that student’s health because it impacts other students. A student on heroin, the drug which this testing is supposed to target, will probably be impacting other students sooner rather than later. If all (or even most) parents successfully supervised this sort of thing, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now.
I understand the privacy concerns, but we’re talking about illegal activities here. This isn’t about who has a comic book collection, this is about who is breaking the law and smoking or using illegal drugs. A school’s assurance that they’re going to keep records confidential is about all you can get when you’re talking about illegal activities. It’s just like speeding in a car; it’s illegal, and you’re talking a chance whenever you do it. If you get caught, there are consequences to pay. If you don’t like facing those consequences, however, then don’t speed. Same goes for illegal drug use.
Talking about money concerns when it comes to Ignatius gives me a smile. That 45k is what, tuition for 6 students? I think it’s safe to say that spending 45k isn’t going to break the bank at Iggy’s or take away from anything else.
There are absolutely concerns about a conflict of interest in terms of why they selected this company. I do feel, however, that they have adequately addressed these concerns in the media. All this should have been presented up front and honestly to students in the beginning, however.
From reading this op-ed, I get the impression that users of marijuana feel very concerned about the testing. They are not the targets of the drug testing, but they’re going to get caught up in that net anyways. Marijuana is flirting with becoming legal more and more, and there is somewhat of a national push to legalize it as well. All that being said, I can see where people would view it as “not so bad” or “something that’s incorrectly illegal” and therefore really is okay to use. So viewing themselves as “not really the bad guys here” in this situation, I feel this is the core objection to the drug testing. Marijuana is hard to detect, there are more indications of drinking than there are of marijuana use, especially considering that someone “turning to alcohol” since they can’t use marijuana would be looking to get drunk (not just sipping on a beer). This drug testing ruins that, so wrapped in the cloak of objecting due to alcohol concerns, health issues, and privacy concerns, is really just an objection on behalf of marijuana users. I just find it really hard to believe that a school that can force you to shave your facial hair or change your tie/shirt is suddenly being disrespectful to students by testing for illegal drugs that shouldn’t be being used in the first place.
Well put
Vince, you have done the community a service by publishing this. It looks like Scene is the only real newspaper left in the city. Thanks for giving a voice of reason an outlet.
Fantastic piece. The one way I can suggest for those alum who are concerned with this issue is to speak with their checkbooks. I treasure my time at St. Ignatius, but I am not blind to the fact that the way to hurt them most is through the loss of alumni donations.
And somebody hire this kid. Today.
As someone who has had some experience with the Catholic high schools I agree completely with this young man. Alcohol is the drug of choice in Catholic high schools, so why are they focusing instead on mandatory testing for other drugs? Follow the money. The brother of the principal of St. Ed’s stands to make some money on this little venture.
Who cares? As an Ignatius graduate, I agree that drinking is probably still the majority of what kids do. So if it’s drinking, what’s the big deal with drug tests. Not a lot of kids do it you say? Then what are they afraid of? It’s an invasion of privacy? These are private institutions who educate young people below the legal adult age of 18. They have no right to privacy. Don’t like it? Go somewhere else. What this article and the op-ed suggests is that these kids are being unfairly punished in some way because of their greedy schools and the shady connection to the testing corporation. What it fails to point out is that you will be hard-pressed to NOT find an Ignatius or Ed’s graduate in positions of power across the city of Cleveland. This is just another teenager complaining about not getting his way. Get over yourselves!
I graduated from Ignatius in 2006.
The school’s mantra is “Men for Others”. It’s written all over the school & preached constantly by faculty and staff. The school administration puts a TON of effort into creating this idea that the student body is a collection “men” not “kids” and that students should be treated like adults. For me this drug testing program completely destroys the “Men for Others” culture that I enjoyed during my time there. Treating your student body like a bunch of untrustworthy parolees is the OPPOSITE treating them like adults.
Bravo. This student has presented more research and scholarly citations in his op-ed than any of the schools have in anything I have seen them release.
These schools should take a year to research this issue extensively. How can we reduce the biggest problems facing our students.
1. ALCOHOL and drunk driving
2. The true Heroin epidemic in these boys home suburbs.
3. Prescription Drug abuse
Blanket drug testing is not the answer.
What a well written article. I was on the side of the testing until I read what this young man had to say. I do believe that drinking is a far worse threat to kids today. You hear of way more accidents due to drunk driving than under the influence of marijuana. And after a night of drinking, it’s not unheard of for a kid to do something really crazy. After smoking pot however, most people just want to chill. Yes, it’s true if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else. But it does seem funny that the money is going into the pocket of someone so closely related to the schools.
Fabulous article! Are faculty getting drug tested? Is there a heroin problem at these schools? There are all kinds of preventative measures but I don’t go for this. The silly answer is to say, “if they are not doing it they have nothing to fear.” Would you test your spouse for STD with the same philosophy? The backbone of these schools is faith. The schools should have some faith in their students. This is a parent issue as Vince says. I doubt a kid on drugs would succeed at any of these schools anyway. Some high school kids feel like they are in a prison already, what is next…their emails & Facebook pages. Control is a tricky subject. Packy Malley (Ignatius ’83).
It’s pretty simple. If just 20 current juniors (who will next year be seniors and the “leaders” of the school), who are paying tuition in full, declared that they will not continue going to school there unless this movement was repealed, you’d be surprised how fast this would go away. That’s 20 * $12,500 (or more since I’ve left) = $250,000 that they won’t see next year unless they listen to their student body, whose privacy they are encroaching on. The more football players, the better. They’ll miss their chance at more State Championships (especially football, they generally don’t care about the rest).
But on another note, are the faculty getting tested? Coaches? Janitors? Anybody affiliated with the school in any way.
The only way these kids are going to reverse this policy is organizing on facebook this summer to boycott school, take their licks, and teach their parents a thing or two about America, free speech and constitutional rights (whether or not they can fully assert them legally being still teenagers). Teenagers can always participate as civil disobeyers like adults on occasion do to remind folks of the moral, ethical and many times, illegal attempts by authorities to strip you of your rights.
Jebbies, teachers and Parents need to quit sliding into authoritarian heavy handed (and profitable) approaches to control what little they truly can control with dubious methods as collecting hair samples for testing.
Seeley pointed out the real hypocrisy here at these Catholic Schools. They’ve always given the nod and wink to alcohol abuse as a right of passage. For them they could never set the example of ending cocktail hour at the residence or at the liquor cabinet at home. Alcohol reigns supreme down a W.30th and Lorain for all the micro breweries and an Ohio City economy built by almighty Alcohol.
And alcohol is far far more damaging to these young lives than any of this Reefer Madness that their far right conservative religious education would ever concede. This testing is about their fears of a future of legal pot dispensaries, even maybe shops next to GLB that would strip away the pretense that Jebbie Knows Best and by God We’ll Grab You By Your Hair Follicles to Prove It, Kid. At 30 bucks a test. Cha-CHING!
But God how I miss those Settler’s Landing Keggers on Friday afternoons in 1980.
The only way these kids are going to reverse this policy is organizing on facebook this summer to boycott school, take their licks, and teach their parents a thing or two about America, free speech and constitutional rights (whether or not they can fully assert them legally being still teenagers). Teenagers can always participate as civil disobeyers like adults on occasion do to remind folks of the moral, ethical and many times, illegal attempts by authorities to strip you of your rights.
Jebbies, teachers and Parents need to quit sliding into authoritarian heavy handed (and profitable) approaches to control what little they truly can control with dubious methods as collecting hair samples for testing.
Seeley pointed out the real hypocrisy here at these Catholic Schools. They’ve always given the nod and wink to alcohol abuse as a right of passage. For them they could never set the example of ending cocktail hour at the residence or at the liquor cabinet at home. Alcohol reigns supreme down a W.30th and Lorain for all the micro breweries and an Ohio City economy built by almighty Alcohol.
And alcohol is far far more damaging to these young lives than any of this Reefer Madness that their far right conservative religious education would ever concede. This testing is about their fears of a future of legal pot dispensaries, even maybe shops next to GLB that would strip away the pretense that Jebbie Knows Best and by God We’ll Grab You By Your Hair Follicles to Prove It, Kid. At 30 bucks a test. Cha-CHING!
But God those Settler’s Landing Keggers on Friday afternoons in 1980 were off the hook – Occupy The Flats. RIP Carl.
I am not a proponent of drug nor alcohol consumption by teenagers. I recognize the dangers of altering perceptions which are either not developed to completion or incorrect to begin with. I am, however, a realist and acknowledge the fact that drug use among teenagers has become a right of passage for the majority. Having stated my opinion I will now concur with the opinion of Mr. Seeley regarding privacy issues and the ineffectiveness of testing. I served on the speakers bureau of the Free Clinic of Cleveland for the first ten years of operation during which time we conducted educational seminars in the Cleveland Public School system and several area civic organizations. The ONLY solution to the proliferation of drugs throughout this culture is the presentation of unbiased and nonjudgemental information effective enough for individuals to make rational or irrational choices. Ultimately, these choices will be made.
Bitchy, whiny Catholic school punks. You have no rights as minors. Go to public school and take your lumps instead of hiding behind mommy and daddy’s checkbook.
^One of the most ignorant statements I have ever read. I am a senior now, and Saint Ignatius has changed my life for the better in every single way. You have no idea what this place means. This is not some school where Daddy pays the bill so I can get into Harvard. 50% of our students are on financial aid. Check your facts before you say anything else about one of the best schools in the state of Ohio.
Just “taking your lumps” at an early age makes the possibility for alcoholism later in life astronomically higher. Doing these drug tests (which I think should include alcohol) could save a person’s life, not just directly but indirectly by reducing drunk driving.
Let’s get something straight… With or without the drug test, student will drink alcohol. Nothing can change that. I agree schools right to drug test students. They will get the students the help they need and get drugs out of the schools. Pot is not technically an “addictive” drug but you won’t see many people quit smoking because it gets mentally addictive. Plus it is also an expensive habit so saving kids/parents money won’t be a bad thing. I’ve yet to see a study that says pot increases a person ability to work harder, focus more and perform better in the classroom or on the field. Plus it’s not like kids are going to tell their parents they want to transfer schools because they want to continue to smoke pot. I would be very suspicious if my child wanted to transfer after hearing about the new drug test situation
They are looking into testing for alcohol as well for future years
Every one of our children’s
Civil rights must be violated repeatedly and regularly to keep this drug testing company afloat. They are billing for hair testing which even CDL truck drivers and airplane pilots do not have to take. Why? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
IRS needs to audit the drug testing company and St Eds and Iggys for evidence of fraud.
Drinking is the unofficial sport at St Ignatius. If they really cared about the students they would have a breathalyzer at all school games. But they unofficially condone drunk driving and illegal drinking by minors. I doubt anything has changed in the 20 odd years since I graduated.
One dead student is one too many. And it could be yours. The real problem at issue is not alcohol or marijuana. There is a very evil and deadly drug threat running through the community as I write this. It is killing high school kids every week across Ohio, and these three schools ARE NOT IMMUNE and are, IN ACTUALITY, very much at risk. The hair test is the BEST test because the results cannot be altered or skewed by the person being tested. This move by the schools will save lives, the lives of your kids, with little inconvenience, and they are virtually non-invasive. If this testing is not quickly or timely implemented you can all but guarantee that you will be hearing and reading about students dying by overdosing on the deadly drugs currently being circulated. KUDOS to the schools for implementing this testing IMMEDIATELY. The importance and urgency of the situation cannot be overstated.
inTHEknow — One terrorist attack that kills Americans is one too many. In light of that fact, the NSA and the FBI will be searching each house in the Cleveland area over a month-long span starting tomorrow. Random spot searches of your property will occur over the next year as well, in addition to the constant monitoring of your phone calls. Because, you know, supposedly desperate times (haven’t read many news articles on Igs/Eds/Gilmore students dying lately) require desperate measures. What drug are you talking about anyways?
I serve in the Armed Forces now — I was randomly drug tested two times over the past three weeks. Drug tests are not what keeps me from using drugs. It’s the knowledge that drugs, illegal or legal, will inhibit my professional abilities. When I was in high school (at Ignatius), I learned lifelong lessons to that effect without the constant threat of drug testing. It’s much better for a young person to understand the extremely complex and personal lesson of why one should not use drugs, not simply, “If I use drugs, Mr. Hennessey is going to bust my ass”. That will get you past Ignatius, but it won’t make you succeed in college and later life.
The MADD approach to drugs is archaic and statistics show that it’s ineffective. I fear this is a result of our CYA (cover your *ss) society, in which the administration can throw up their hands and say, “Well hey, we drug tested them!” when something goes wrong. The nepotistic contract with the drug testing company cannot be overlooked, either.
Trust the students and their families (there are very few shattered families at those schools) to do what families should do.
Students — solidarity. Show up completely shaven. Nubile. Don’t let them get a hair. They can’t kick all of you out.
Alumni — withold donations until this madness has passed. I will be doing just that.
Parents — express your concern to the administration, and if you’re of the ACLU mindset, don’t send your kids to school there. The three schools will lose lots of talent.
Has anyone collected the links to all the related material on this topic? Here’s what I’ve got so far.
St. Ignatius Eye paper:
http://saintignatiuseye.org/2014/04/29/school-to-begin-mandatory-drug-test-program-in-2014-2015-school-year/
Cleveland.com article with original letter sent to parents:
http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2014/04/mandatory_drug_testing_to_analyze_students_hair_3_area_catholic_high_schools_to_start_practice_this_fall.html
Sound of Ideas discussion (video or audio):
http://www.ideastream.org/soi/entry/61748
Cheers,
Joe Gorse, Class of 2000
Benjamin Seeley has cogently articulated every concern I have with this misbegotten initiative
by St. Ignatius, St. Edward and Gilmour. I find it incomprehensible that the St. Ignatius Administration blocked the publication of this article by Mr. Seeley. The high quality of his writing, research, logic and argumentation reflect favorably on the school. St. Ignatius would have done better to have given Seeley an award for this fine piece of persuasive writing.
R. Valerian