- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: University of Alabama begins drug testing Fraternity members
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:47 pm to Btrtigerfan
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:47 pm to Btrtigerfan
Lol. The butthurt even makes it's way to the OT.
0
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:50 pm to Count Chocula
quote:
That was thrown out on political grounds, not Constitutional, wasn't it?
Drug testing of welfare applicants is generally considered constitutional IF the government has reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) to believe the welfare user is under the influence of drugs. Suspicionless drug testing, ie testing at random or testing everybody, violates the Fourth Amendment.
I'm almost certain that random drug testing of frat members (or other college students for that matter) is unconstitutional without a warrant. I think the courts would say that the severe intrusion on student privacy is not outweighed by the government interest in a drug-free body. There is also a warrant exception for "special needs beyond the need for ordinary law enforcement" but that probably would not apply here either.
quote:
Probable cause is required. There is not random testing of state employees.
Don't necessarily need probable cause. The question is whether the special needs exception to the warrant requirement would apply (see above, probably not)
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:54 pm to MSMHater
The testing is prompted by alumni/advisors of the fraternity, and it's detailed in their membership agreements that they sign.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:54 pm to saltydawg
quote:
on't necessarily need probable cause. The question is whether the special needs exception to the warrant requirement would apply (see above, probably not)
Ok. I'll rephrase. There must be some sort of incident or direct accusation (i.e. reasonable suspicion) to force a urine screen on a state employee. An accident with injuries in a classroom, medical episode, witness to drug usage, etc...
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:54 pm to Brodeur
quote:
and it's detailed in their membership agreements that they sign.
Then they are fricked! Hope they enjoy the piss tests.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 12:57 pm to MSMHater
quote:
Ok. I'll rephrase. There must be some sort of incident or direct accusation (i.e. reasonable suspicion) to force a urine screen on a state employee. An accident with injuries in a classroom, medical episode, witness to drug usage, etc...
In the secondary education context, the Surpeme Court has approved suspicionless drug testing of students. In Vernonia and Earls, there was no reasonable suspicion to believe the students were using drugs but the Supreme Court still upheld the searches. Granted, high school and college are very different (which is why I think these searches are illegal).
I agree with your conclusion but as a doctrinal matter it's not a foregone conclusion that "there must be some sort of direct or indirect accusation," which is why this is a tough case. Sometimes the court does allow suspicionless drug tests.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:01 pm to sullivanct19a
quote:
frats have no one to blame but themselves. they've tried to act like they have diplomatic immunity or something for so long, like there are no consequences, now they've brought too much attention to themselves
I don't understand what frats do that is any different from what every college kid does. The percentage that use drugs is going to be on par with the rest of the student body. Date rape, etc. is going to probably be the same thing (I'll admit I don't have statistics). So what is it that they are doing that they brought it upon themselves? Because they are a part of a campus organization? Then anyone in any club should be subjected to the same. Hell just being a student at the school should be enough. You are part of that organization in a sense.
So what is it really? It's a dislike for the system as a whole. The exclusivity. The white upper middle class male club that you can easily point your finger at and say, "they are doing bad things". The PC bullshite has been preached for so long that the Greek organizations themselves believe they have to change to not seem so bad. They've now got to act better than the rest of the student body, because they are in a certain type of club.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:03 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Riseupfromtherubble
I don't know how this is legal unless the national chapters are making it part of the criteria one agrees to in order t become a member.
I guess the University could also make it part of the criteria in order for the fraternity to remain on campus. However, wouldn't that then make it necessary for all organizations to submit to the same criteria?
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:16 pm to genro
quote:you dont have a clue what you are talking about
We actually do police our football players. We ain't Tallahassee.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:19 pm to Ryan3232
I'm sure as an LSU fan in Louisiana you have a great grasp on the local dynamics of the UA/Tuscaloosa community and would be happy to enlighten me
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:28 pm to KG6
There is a difference and the testing isn't mandated by the University.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:56 pm to Brodeur
I didn't say anything about the testing. I even said the organizations themselves are implementing these policies. But it's due to public perception. You say it's different, but how. It's a perception of difference. I was part of one of the organizations and know plenty of people who weren't. Everyone partied and cut up the same.
This post was edited on 12/18/15 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:58 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
It's hard to fathom how much has changed with regard to college in like the past 20 years. It's unreal.
Millenials can't keep their shite together, so TPTB overreact. Blame on both sides.
Posted on 12/18/15 at 1:59 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Is the selective process of only testing fraternities specifically and not students at large really fair?
No, not at all. I'm sure there will be lawsuits over this. If you test a member of KA, then you must test a member of the Campus Rastafarians.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News