Management attorneys, from different law firms, outline the potential constitutional pitfalls involved in drug testing public employees, and then set forth the factors that most likely will support the validity of testing programs and that are consistent both with employee dignity and the Constitution. (MLF)

Two union lawyers concede that employer concern about substance abuse is legitimate but object to the invasion of individual privacy and the assault on worker dignity. Describe the standards that must be met for drug testing to be constitutionally valid and identify the unreliable technology of drug tests. (MLF)

This article presents the background, the history, and the implications of the Larry P. v Riles decisions in 1972 and in 1979 in which a federal district court enjoined California from using any standardized intelligence tests to assess Black children for eligibility for classes of educable mentally retarded. (Author/CTM)

The analysis in this article is directed to the basic issues: Are IQ tests biased against Black children? And are IQ tests valid for the placement of Black children in special programs? The research evidence on these major issues is ambiguous and contradictory. (Author/CTM)

The Larry P. decision is criticized with reference to: (1) predictive tests and the standard curriculum; (2) the court's portrayal of special classes; (3) the effects of the 1972 decision on special class enrollment; (4) semantic confusion; and (5) the impact on Black children who experience academic difficulty. (Author/CTM)