======================================================================== Don Hopkins 5819 Ruatan Street College Park, MD 20740 Paul Allaire Xerox Corporation Stamford, CT 06904 Dear Mr. Allaire: In February of 1990, I applied for a summer internship at Xerox PARC by sending in my resume along with recommendations from Ben Shneiderman (faculty and supervisor), P. S. Krishnaprasad (faculty), Mitch Bradley (supervisor), Gudrun Polak (supervisor), and Mark Weiser (faculty, supervisor, and CSL lab director). I was accepted and invited to join PARC for the summer, and given a list of three projects proposed by groups that wanted to sponsor me. I was excited by all three, and Christian Jacobi's proposal meshed perfectly with my interests and experience. However, when I discussed the position with Eric Bier, I learned that to qualify for the job, I would have to consent to having my urine collected and tested for evidence of drug use. I object to not being notified of the drug test until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. The announcement of summer internships at PARC broadcast to the Internet should have mentioned the drug testing requirement, along with the resume and reference requirements, so that I would have known not to apply to Xerox in the first place. Because I wanted to work at PARC, and I had already gone through much effort to qualify for the job, I took the drug test, against my principles, and passed. I regret taking the test, compromising myself, and selling out to a company that does not respect the privacy of its employees. I went to Roche Labs in Bethesda, Maryland to submit to the test, where I was treated rudely by the lab technician. She refused to administer the test, but after two hours her supervisor finally intervened and I was permitted to drain my bladder into a specimen jar. I related the details of my experience to Bill Skinner, and he requested that Bethesda Roche Labs be removed from Xerox's list of approved urine collection agencies. But, unfortunately, he could do nothing to address the real problem that most troubles me: Xerox's ill-conceived urine testing policy. Screening for drug use before employment is an ineffective method of providing a drug free work place. It also invades my privacy, casts doubt on my integrity, and violates my dignity. The policy makes it harder for Xerox to hire good honest people, because it discourages them from even applying for the job. Had I known that Xerox had such a policy, before I had otherwise qualified for and been accepted to the job, I would have been sorry, but would not have wasted my time. Even though I passed the drug test, and am completely qualified for the summer internship at Xerox PARC, I must turn it down because of the drug testing policy. I couldn't feel good about working for Xerox after the violation of my privacy, the ordeal I've been through, and the lack of respect I've been shown. The decision was a painful one: regardless of the cloud of urine testing hanging over it, Xerox PARC is a most prestigious place, where I could have been exposed to many great ideas, and met some of the best people in the profession. I wish I could have spent the summer at Xerox PARC, but instead I have taken a full time job at Sun Microsystems, a company that respects its employees enough to provide a drug free work place without invading their privacy. I won't be looking for other employment in the forseeable future, but I would be delighted to hear when Xerox has changed its drug testing policy. Until such a time, I hope that potential job applicants learn about the policy before they decide to apply. I sympathize with my colleagues who work in positions they would no longer be willing to accept on moral grounds, and who have been forced to compromise their principles because of other responsibilities. "What are politicians going to tell people when the Constitution is gone and we still have a drug problem?" -- William Simpson, A.C.L.U. Sincerely and regretfully, Don Hopkins ======================================================================== University of Maryland Health Center I walked into the University of Maryland Health Center, and asked to have my urine tested for drugs. I was refered to Dan Calvin, Urine Czar, who is in charge of the administration of urine tests. These are my notes from a discussion I had with Dan Calvin on April 16. The lines prefixed by [ ]'s are questions I still want answered. ======================================================================== Dan Calvin Urine Czar University of Maryland Health Center (301) 454-3444 (301) 454-8701 I asked if the University of Maryland Health Center would give me a urine test to screen for drugs. He asked why I wanted it. I honestly said that I wanted the Health Center to administer a test, because I had to take another test as a condition for employment, and it was very important for me to pass that test. He said that there was a policy of not testing students who volunteered to be tested, because some of them just wanted to know if they were clean for other tests they were required to take. I said that the University of Maryland drug abuse information pamphlet that I read said that some students voluntarily request testing, and that I understood it to mean that I could ask for a test and get it. He said that I had to be enrolled in a drug treatment program, and that the counselor would have to decide if testing was necessary. I said that I wouldn't be here asking to have my urine tested, if I needed to be enrolled in a treatment program, and that I thought I had at least as much of a right to know what chemicals were in my own urine, as did my potential employer. [ ] I want to see the written policy on this matter. What is the reason for the policy? Under what conditions are students who voluntarily request testing administered tests? Why is it mentioned in the pamphlet? From the pamphlet: "Drug Testing The service is available for students who are currently participating in some type of alcohol or drug abuse intervention program in the Health Center, or elsewhere. Sometimes students voluntarily request testing, and sometimes it is requested by the Office of Judicial Programs, probation officers, attorneys at law, etc. The urine collection and chair-of-custody [sic] procedures prevent tampering of samples. Highly reliable confirmatory tests are relied upon. The student incurs the cost of the test ($25.00 to $125.00) in all cases. For more information about drug testing call 454-6817." I put a note into the suggestion box asking for the phrase "Sometimes students voluntarily request testing" to be omitted or qualified. He claimed that the University of Maryland employees who did not sign a piece of paper saying they wouldn't do illict drugs were fired. I said that I had talked to several people [including a graduate student, a professor, and a dean] who all worked for the university and refused to sign the paper, and they were still working for the university. He said I didn't know how many people signed it, how many refused to sign it, and how many were fired. He said that my statistical sample was very small and that he expected a computer science major to know statistics better than that. I said that as far as I knew, those people who refused to sign were still working for the University. I had discussed it quite recently with the professor and the dean, and neither of them mentioned being fired. Even though it took me three tries to pass statistics, at least I knew enough about logic to see that there was something wrong about what he was telling me. I asked whether they only fired *some* of the people who didn't sign. How did they discriminated against the people who they fired for not signing, and why they didn't fire other people for not signing? He said some of the people were fired and hired right back again. Why didn't he tell me that in the first place, I asked. Didn't that vindicate the people who refused to sign because it was an invasion of their privacy? [ ] I want a copy of the paper people were asked to sign. [ ] I want a chance to refuse to sign it myself, since I am a University of Maryland employee, but was never given the paper. [ ] I want to know how many people signed, how many did not sign, how many were fired, how many were re-hired. [ ] Exactly why were the people re-hired? Were all of them re-hired? [ ] Will the University try to make people sign such a paper in the future? Will they fire people for refusing to sign the paper? He said that a bill had just been passed that would require companies to do random drug testing. I said that if he was refering to the Drug Free Workplace Act of March 1989, then the Xerox drug testing consent form explicitly stated that "The Act does not require Xerox to drug test." He said he had a copy of the Drug Free Workplace Act, and that even though Xerox was only testing new employees now, they would be required to do random testing because of a law that was now on the books. I asked if it was the Drug Free Workplace Act of March 1989 that required random testing, and he did not say. [ ] I want a copy of the act that would force companies to perform random testing, as well as a copy of the Drug Free Workplace Act of March 1989 (if they are different acts). He asked me if I knew what the cost of drug use to society was. I told him that I was familiar with the claims that President Bush was making, because I had just read a Scientific American article about it [Scientific American, March 1990, pp. 18-22]. I read him an excerpt from the article, which told how the incredibly inflated statistical figure of $60 to $100 billion in lost productivity due to drug use was bogusly computed, and how there was no significant difference in workplace performance of people who test postitive or negative for drugs. According to the head of the NIDA study, Henrick Harwood, there was no significant difference between the income of households with current users of any illegal drug -- including marijuana, cocaine and heroin -- and the income of otherwise similar households. Harwood, who now have a nice job with the White House, had to admit that, "you would be safe saying that [current use of even hard drugs -- as opposed to perhaps a single marijuana binge in the distant past -- does not lead to any ``loss'']." Dan Calvin kept trying to interrupt me, to keep me from reading the article to him. He said he had a copy of the NIDA study, but he did not care to have a copy of the Scientific American article. I said I thought it was his job to know about these things. [ ] I want a copy of the NIDA study. I told him that I have been told by many Xerox PARC employees that they would walk, if Xerox instituted random drug testing. He said he didn't think they would, that people just talk a lot and never acted on what they believe. He said that Xerox could just hire more people. I said that the people at PARC could not be replaced. I said that were I in their position, threatened with random drug testing, (which I very well could be, were I to take the job), I would walk myself, since I know I could easily get another good job at a company that did not test. He said that I was lying. [ ] I want to know exactly what I said that he thinks was a lie. He said that for somebody who was into computers, my logic was very faulty. I said that this sentence is a lie. I asked him if I was lying just then. He said that I was using the same tactics as the anti-drug campaigns. I asked just what those tactics were, and how does he justify the anti-drug campaign's use of them? And why does he think that only one side should be able to use those tactics? I asked if he respected the moral position I would be taking, by submitting to the drug test, but refusing to take the job. He said he did not. [ ] I want to know what he suggests I do in this situation? What actions on my part would earn his respect? He said that whatever I did, it would only be a drop in the bucket, and wouldn't mean anything. I said that at least it would be a drop in the right bucket. ======================================================================== The next day, I discussed my encounter with Dan Calvin with the director of the University of Maryland Health Center, Dr. Bridwell. She was very helpful and understanding, and she arranged for me to take my urine test that day (which I passed). She appreciated me telling her about the problem, and she said that nobody else is going to have the same problem I had. ======================================================================== Roche Labs, Bethesda Maryland. At both urine tests I've taken (the practice test at the University of Maryland Health Center, and the real drug screening test for Xerox at Bethesda Roche Labs), the person in charge didn't want to let me submit to the test. Both times, I had to ask their supervisors to override their decisions, appealing for special permission to piss in a bottle. I was always forthright about my belief that urine testing is a violation of my privacy, even though I was compromising my principles and submitting to the test anyway. The way I've been treated in both cases confirms my belief that urine tests are intended to discourage people like me from even applying in the first place. Unfortunatly Xerox didn't notify me of their drug testing policy until after I had applied for the job, been accepted, and chosen a project. Had I known about their drug testing policy in advance, I would have acted on what I believe, by never applying to Xerox for employment. The people who administer my drug tests treated me as if they didn't expect people like me to ever submit to them, unless we're crazed criminals trying to cheat our way into urine sensative positions. Anyone with the integrity to refuse a urine is in the same class as unqualified applicants and drug abusers: unfit to work at Xerox. The only drug abusers Xerox will employ are those unscrupulous enough to cheat on the test (which is certainly possible despite the chain of custody procedure followed by Roche Labs). ======================================================================== Before I took the test, I called ahead to the Roche labs Gaithersburg collection agency, and asked if my University of Maryland Student ID was sufficient identification. She assured me it was, but I asked again if she was really sure, because I didn't have a drivers license, so I would have to take a taxi to the collection agency (for which Bill Skinner kindly agreed to reimburse me), and I didn't want to be turned away after all that money, time, and effort. She again assured me that a current photo ID with a social security number was enough. I called for a cab, and found out that the closest Roche urine collection agency was in Bethesda. While the cab was on the way, I called Roche Labs in Bethesda and to ask if my student ID was OK with them, too. The person who answered the phone told me that Roche labs had moved upstairs to another office, but their phone had not yet been moved. But he told me that the lady who worked there said that all I needed was a photo ID and a full bladder. So trustingly, I showed up in Bethesda with 32 ounces of coke and 1/2 a liter of coffee in my system, a student ID, a current registration card, a social security card, a Visa card, a (my bank is) Chevy Chase (and your isn't) card, an ancient expired military ID, and few hours before I had to be in class. To my surprise, the lady who worked for Bethesda Roche Labs would not take any of my IDs -- she wanted a valid drivers license or a non-drivers ID card. I told her that Gaithersburg Roche labs said a photo ID with a social security number was sufficient identification. No good. Same company, different policy. She was in charge here. She did not doubt my identity, she just would not accept my identification. (Not even my ACLU card!) She was very nasty, and treated me like a 17-year-old trying to buy a 6-pack of beer! So I stomped downstairs to the pay phone, called the Gaithersburg lab again, asked to talk to the person I'd conversed with before, and asked for her supervisor. Her supervisor was at the Rockville Roche Labs collection agency, so I called her there, and explained the situation. She said that my student ID should be just fine, and that I should have the lady from Bethesda call her back, and she would tell her it was OK to test me. I told her that the phone was not working in the office yet, but I'd ask her to call somehow. I went up to the office, and walked back in. She looks at me like she was thinking "I thought I got rid of you!" She was not amused when I told her to call her supervisor, who wanted to talk to her. She said she couldn't call her supervisor since the phone was not installed. I said her supervisor knew that, but she was expected to call somehow. She would not leave the office to make the call, and went on to collect samples from several other people who had arrived since I had. When the waiting room was finally emptied of everyone but me, she went next door for a few minutes, and when she came back, she said somebody was using the phone next door so I would just have to wait. I waited for a while, but I had to pee so bad that I finally asked her if she would just use the pay phone downstairs, which I had used to call her supervisor. She said she didn't want to spend her own money, so I offered her a quarter. She said she didn't want to leave the office unlocked, so I suggested that she lock it. She said that I would just have to wait until the phone next door was not in use, and she proceeded to do paperwork for a while. Finally, I stood up, and told her that I was going to go downstairs and call her supervisor again, to let her know how the situation was progressing. She glared at me, so I did what I told her I'd do. When I got back up to the office after talking to her supervisor again, the door was closed and locked, and there was a sign on it that said "Back in 10 minutes!" With a sense of urgency that was probably not going to last 10 minutes, I walked around the building looking for her. Sure enough, I found her downstairs, in the old office of Roche Labs, in the room with the same joker who had told me to show up with a photo ID and a full bladder, talking on the phone with her supervisor. I waited for her to finish, and met her back up at the office. She unlocked the door, went inside, and grudgingly demanded my ID. I gave her everything she needed, and then she insisted on the phone number of the person who wanted me to take the test (even though her phone didn't work). I gave her a phone number at Xerox PARC, and she bitched that it was not a local phone call, but finally agreed to administer the test. For at least an hour and a half since I first went into the office ready to take the test, my bladder was full and my teeth were floating, all the time I'm trying to deal this god damned unexpected crisis situation! I was *NOT* in the best of moods by this time -- you can guess my state of mind. If you thought it's been humiliating so far, you've obviously never taken a urine test yourself. I suggest you go to the corner collection agency and take one just for jollies. It would be a very educational experience to put yourself in my position. Especially if the person administering the piss test has you on her shit list for going over her head to her supervisor, and forcing her to give you a test she didn't think you deserved, and the only thing you can think of is releasing the pressure on your bladder that's built up during hours of trying to deal with this bullshit. The Standard Procedure consists of treating you like a cheating criminal, expecting that you will take any chance to foil the test, making you follow their ridiculous procedures, jumping through their hoops, before you're allowed to pee. She puts blue dye in the toilet, you empty your pockets into a box that she locks up while you're taking the test, she yells at you to put your pants back on when you try to cooperate by expediting the procedure, she squirts soap into your hand, you wash your hands well, open the sealed plastic bag with the specimen jar with a liquid crystal thermometer on the side, sign and date it in ink, she puts a plastic bag over the faucet, tapes it up with a big red CONFIDENTIAL sticker, ushers you into the room, lets you close the door, and only then do you *finally* get a chance to pee! Aah! Wooooah that's a small bottle! Aaaaaaaaaaaah! And what good does it do Xerox? Do they get their sacred Drug Free Work Place? Noooooo! Does she even ask me to wash my hands *after* I piss in the bottle? Noooooo! What's stopping me from lighting up a big doobie and laughing about it all, once I get home from this horrible ordeal? If *ANYTHING* can drive someone to do drugs, it's this kind of a day! ========================================================================