A new Wisconsin law that allows teachers to have students tested for HIV could lead to mandatory HIV testing for students in the schools. The new law merely adds school officials to the list of others – paramedics, police – that may order an HIV test for an individual who may have contaminated them with blood.

The story behind the bill involves a teacher, Cheryl Hartman, who teaches emotionally disturbed adolescents. She says these students can become violent. When restrained, they may bite. Biting, of course, has a low probability of transmission of HIV. But three years ago a student went into a violent rage, broke a window, sliced his arm, and some of his blood spattered in Hartman’s eye. She washed her eye out immediately, fearing that she might have contracted HIV, though there was no proof that the student was HIV positive. She may have thought he was gay because she said that “these students” are sexually active and may also be drug-users. Yet she had no reason to believe this student was HIV positive.

Nevertheless, she wanted the student tested for HIV, but his parents refused. Hartman had to go to court and get a court order to have him tested. While a burden, this is still the best approach. School officials will want to test students to avoid liability, workers’ comp and disability issues with teachers.

But under the new law, school officials – including teachers and janitors – could order students tested for HIV. Teachers, however, would need to show a doctor that a student exposed them to blood. The teacher would also have to take an HIV test within a specified time period. Teachers’ unions supported the bill, but made clear that they don’t support mandatory testing for students and teachers.

The new law concerns me because kids skin their knees on playgrounds, or get cuts in sports. If teachers can order a test if the teacher has been exposed, it’s possible for teachers to order such tests on behalf of other students. Being HIV positive or perceived to be positive still bears a harsh social stigma.

Some may remember Ryan White and his family. Upon learning White was positive, some people in Kokomo, Ind., tried to kick him out of school. They burned down his family home. The right tried to keep HIV positive students out of school.

The national hysteria has subsided, and in the ensuing 20 years there have been no reported HIV cases resulting from transmission from student-to-student, student-to-teacher, or teacher-to-student. So this new law is unnecessary and marks yet another effort by the right to limit privacy rights. The fact that students perceived to be gay could become the targets of this law remains inescapable. That’s why a federal court should strike down this law on privacy grounds and keep testing of students in the hands of judges.

There’s nothing illegal about being HIV positive. No court has approved of schools conducting HIV tests or pregnancy tests under any circumstances. The right wing would like nothing more than to have mandatory STD, HIV, and pregnancy testing in the schools. Just as “drug tests” act as a deterrent to drug use, they argue, so, too, would mandatory STD tests. The test results would be reported to parents and parents would learn that their kids are sexually active.

Whether it’s the “war on drugs” or the “war on terrorism,” Americans have become conditioned now to the loss of privacy. President Bush has also declared a “war on AIDS”. So get ready: As HIV testing has become very simple (a swab in the mouth, and results in 20 minutes), we can certainly expect to see HIV testing become far more pervasive. But before mandatory HIV testing becomes politically tenable, look for conservatives to use the Wisconsin law as basis for a federal law, requiring states receiving federal funds for education (which is all 50) to allow school officials to test for HIV. My suspicion is that it will be a matter of time before Congress requires mandatory STD testing for high school and college students.

Here’s why: The Journal of School Health reported that one-half of new HIV infections are occurring in people under age 25. Even more startling is the statistic that 50 percent of college students will contract an STD. While mandatory and random (where there’s no suspicion) tests have only been approved for the presence of alcohol or drugs, the Supreme Court could find that the government has an interest in preventing disease transmission and this outweighs privacy concerns.