The Supreme Court is right that a middle school’s strip-search of 13-year-old Savana Redding violated her constitutional rights, said The Washington Post in an editorial, but it was also right to shield the official who ordered the search from being personally sued. Schools need “flexibility” to “maintain order and safety”—in this case, a zero-tolerance drug policy—but strip-searching a schoolgirl in search of prescription ibuprofen clearly crossed a line.
It would've been nice if the justices had been clearer about where that line is, said Francisco Negrón in USA Today. “The abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is a rising threat to the welfare of our children,” and strip searches are a “valuable tool”—used only “in rare cases”—to keep our kids safe. How are non-medical educators supposed to evaluate the “dangerousness” of a drug before ordering a search?
How about if they never order a strip search? said David Bernstein in The Volokh Conspiracy. If the safety concern is great enough to merit such an invasive measure—heroin, say, instead of the equivalent of “2 Advils”—call the police in. We shouldn’t put Savana Redding or any kid at the mercy of “the combination of drug hysteria and the tyrrany of petty government officials.”
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- How the South's ugly racial history is haunting ObamaCare
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- The real story behind Deliver Us From Evil
- What if Leo Strauss was right?
- If Democrats abandon immigration reform after Tuesday's likely loss, they will turn 2016 into a debacle
- Stop making fun of philosophy and read some philosophy
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- 6 things the happiest families all have in common
- Feast your eyes on this beautiful linguistic family tree
- Beware of Splenda: The backlash against artificial sugars
Subscribe to the Week