School officials need to decide which searches are reasonable
For many 13-year-old girls, being featured — even fleetingly — on a national news program might be exciting. Not for me. My image flickered across the screen only briefly on "Dateline NBC" — it was during one of my basketball games, and it showed all of my awkward teenage glory.
The context, however, made the whole thing more embarrassing than exhilarating: The program was all about how a group of my female classmates had been strip-searched after a gym class when several students reported some makeup, cash, and CDs missing. "Dateline" producers had filmed several of our team's games to use as B-roll while the anchor discussed the case.
Though I wasn't one of the girls in the class forced to remove their clothing to prove they weren't hiding the stolen items, I still look back at the episode — which for a time nearly ripped our community apart — with anger and a sense of betrayal.
Soon after the ordeal took place, I overheard my parents and grandparents discussing it, saying they didn't think the administrators and police officers who orchestrated the search were wrong. I fled the house in tears, aghast that my own family thought it would have been OK for me to have been made to undergo a humiliating act in front of a group of strange adults.
The incident at my school was not the first, nor the last in which young kids were made to strip as a result of school administrators bent on proving their "zero tolerance" for crime. The Supreme Court heard arguments in another such case Tuesday — this one involving a 13-year-old Arizona honors student who was strip-searched in 2003 when school officials suspected she possessed ibuprofen. The search turned up nothing.
Defenders of such tactics insist that limiting schools' ability to carry out searches will invite more drugs and danger into classrooms. Certainly, the sentiment of protecting young people within school walls is right, but the method of protection must match that sentiment.
If students are going to be subjected to increasingly restrictive policies — no cell phones, iPods, painkillers, etc. — certainly administrators should have to operate under some limitations as well. And having rules in place to prevent kids from being forced to expose their bodies (something they'd be punished for if done by their own volition) might be a good place to start — particularly if all that's at stake is little more than some 99-cent bottles of Wet 'n' Wild nail polish and a copy of the "Grease" soundtrack.
- In our opinion: Editorial: Millennial...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Rethink the notion that...
- My view: Adjusting the definition of marriage
- Letter: Job creation should be a top...
- In our opinion: Editorial: Underwater...
- U.S. is moving toward the same fate as...
- Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
- Kathleen Parker: In politics, honesty and...
- My view: Adjusting the definition of...
51 - Readers' forum: 'Obamacares'
47 - Letter: Job creation should be a top...
37 - It's déjà vu all over again...
34 - Letter: Remember, Howell is still in...
31 - Would repossessing federal lands help...
22 - Letter: Citizens must overlook emotions...
19 - Hatch's debating 'issue' is manufactured
13






DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
— About comments