Dear Paola and el ciento-siete team:

We want to congratulate you on this 2nd edition of your newspaper, it is a wonderful effort to showcase the activities of our school and the opinions of our students.

We also have some comments regarding Francisco Santos’s piece “The test you can’t exempt.”

The most important thing to point out is that this measure was implemented thinking only on ASFM community’s well-being; it is not, in anyway, meant “to police”, but to encourage conscious decision making.

We also wanted to clarify some misconceptions/incongruences in the article:

First, it states that the test “may be targeted”. The students are strictly chosen on random basis, the exceptions being only those who have come out positive before, as mentioned in the policy available in the ASFM website.

Second, it says that you are “forced to pee in a cup”; it was clearly stated when you enrolled at this year, that testing for drugs would be a requirement for admission, and parents/legal guardians signed it when registered.

Third, the article states that the drug testing is an “effort to eradicate the use of illegal substances among high school students”; that would be in an idealist world, the greatest thing to happen, but still not realistic. Eradicating means “putting an end” and there is no addiction that finishes by using a test. To fight the use of drugs, a large effort from leaders, parents, health experts and the entire community should be done. We are talking about a test implemented to detect and monitor, not to cure, not to eradicate.

Fourth, the article talks about a survey done in September by a “over a hundred students from ASFM” where 2.4% of them wouldn’t care using drugs and being tested. The number of students in this survey is not reliable nor valid; “over a hundred” can mean a hundred and one or a thousand and four, so the 2.4% that is mentioned has no statistical significance.

In the same phrase, when it is stated that “it rises to eight percent once they have taken the standard drug tests on their high school career”, there is the same inaccuracy. This is a complete false statement since only one student is tested a day and the drug test policy started in September 2017. This means that only 21 high schoolers from 9 to 12 grades were tested when the survey was answered. Who are the other, at least, 80 students missing in the numbers the survey states?

Fifth, the article states that “there is a naive incongruence in promoting these healthy lifestyle choices”, we think it is worth specifying which healthy lifestyle choices is the school promoting. We promote healthy lifestyles when promoting a 3, 5, 10K race, when we ask to recycle, when paying attention to the environment, when we discuss the STD prevention, we do not intend to teach healthy choices through peeing in a cup.

Sixth, when it says “furthermore, regardless of the legality, the loss of freedom these tests imply genuinely feels like an invasion of privacy” it would be very important to clarify that

1. It is a legal action, since drug consumption is NOT legal in México.

2. From 9-12 grades, most of the population is underage, which makes the drug consumption even more illegal (this also applies to alcohol consumption).

3. The school has the parent/guardian consent

Invasion of privacy means according to the dictionary “the intrusion into the personal life of another, without just cause”, so:

1. The school is not “intruding”, again, the legal guardian gave us consent.

2. It is not the personal life which the school is monitoring, since we don’t go to the student’s house to test, we do it inside the school property and the student is not forced in any form to be at school beyond his own will.

3. The student is free to do whatever she/he desires during his/her free time but not in school grounds. Coming to school under the influence of any drug is not allowed.

4. The test is performed in a private space, only by the self person, no privacy is invaded.

Clarifying another misinformation included in the article, ASFM do not only test for narcotics, but for ALL type of drugs including alcohol.

You state that this measure will only ensure that students not do drugs while here in the school. Now, while we cannot do anything to help alumni’s decisions once they graduate, if we ARE successful at keeping adolescentes away from drugs until they are at least 18 years old, then we have done a great service, since the longer the brain abstains from illegal substances the more likely that they will not suffer from the physical, cognitive and behavioral consequences later in life, as it has been scientifically proven that the frontal lobe is still developing during the teen years, and all drugs, including alcohol and tobacco have a permanent impact in their brain; compared to a fully developed brain of a grown up.

We started working on this policy three years ago and it is based on solid, scientific and current research; not in feelings or personal opinions. The test is only ONE of the many ways in which we attempt to keep underage students from engaging in illegal actions that will negatively impact their health.

You talk about having youth voice and, as well, that has been provided, through Character Education, Advisory, PHE classes and other interventions like presentations from Dr. Efren Martínez.

Hopefully you can see that your best interest is always our priority. Thank you and we encourage you to keep up expressing yourself with a purpose,

Ms. Eva Lamadrid, Dr. Lucero Espino and Ms. Lily González