Taking hair from students for drug testing is an invasion of our privacy and an intrusion upon our rights over our bodies as well as highly inequitable due to the discrepancies that arise with this form of testing. According to separation of church and state as well as the first amendment which guarantees freedom of religion, all different religions must be tolerated in public schools. While generally this is the case, it must come to the districts attention that it is against several different religions to cut hair. Islam, Hinduism and even orthodox Christianity forbid the cutting of hair. Forcing students to cut their hair for drug testing is an infringement upon their religious freedoms. Another issue arising from the use of hair for testing is that by using hair not all students are held to the same standard when tested for drugs. If the hair is cut to the scalp to get the 1.5 inches of most recent growth, many students with weaves, dreadlocks and cornrows cannot be tested in this manner. Using urine tests as alternative tests for said students creates discrepancies in the nature of the testing and gives certain groups preferential treatment as the urine tests show substances for a shorter period of time. The same holds true for students who shave their heads—arm pit hair is used in this scenario. Since hair from other parts of the body besides the head grows a at different rate, by testing the 1.5 inches of said body hair shows any substances for longer. This holds these students to a higher standard than all the rest of the high school, further showing the inherent inequities that arise from hair testing. Additionally, for people with diseases such as alopecia or are going through chemotherapy, using hair in testing proves impossible. Students across the district feel that by taking our hair, the new drug test policy is an invasion upon our privacy and rights over our bodies. While urine drug tests take a waste product of the human body, hair testing takes something that countless students find immensely more personal and important to them. Many students also have strong ideas and feelings concerning personal space and with being touched by a stranger. In fact, 1 in 5 high school students have a history of sexual abuse. Obtaining hair for testing from these students may bring back unwelcome feelings and/or memories of their sexual abuse if they are uncomfortable with their hair being touched by d127 staff. Furthermore, this form of testing results in a form of gender bias. Significantly more females than males object to giving a hair sample, which may result in decreased female participation in extracurricular activities. As a student body and a community, we do not wish to fully abolish drug testing. We only ask that the district go back to its old method of urinalysis as opposed to using hair drug testing. While we do understand the benefits to such testing, we do not believe that these benefits outweigh the cost to certain individuals. We ask that the board reconsider its decision to use hair instead of urine in drug testing.