Even before the New York Times’ Judith Miller started rotting in jail for her role in the Valeriegate controversy this summer, a federal court decided, quite jovially, to castrate college newspapers. While American troops fought for “democracy” and “freedom” in Iraq, the court invited college administrators to establish their own authoritarian regimes right here, in America’s very own public universities.

It all happened in June, in a case known as Hosty v. Carter, when the Federal 7th District Court of Appeals gave public university administrators in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin the power to review many campus’ student newspapers prior to publication and to censor them for reasons as silly and arbitrary as being poorly written or lacking proper grammar.

The court derived its ruling from a controversial 1988 Supreme Court case, known as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which gave administrators at public high schools great authority to regulate their student publications — even though the court majority wrote in Hazelwood that it specifically did not apply to universities.

In the early 1800s, when the Supreme Court heard one of its first federalism cases, it concluded that power to tax was “power to destroy”; for newspapers, the power to censor unflattering or unfavorable material is no different, and that’s why I’m so worried.

In an awfully written and melodramatic editorial, UCLA’s Daily Bruin concluded that the decision “could topple the very foundations of a university’s mission.” Not quite, but it could come close.

Quite incorrectly, the Daily Bruin argued that the court’s ruling has no effect on California. If the Supreme Court was to uphold the decision, or if our own 9th Circuit used it as a precedent and ruled similarly, California’s colleges would be in big trouble. And students attending UC campuses would be especially hurt.

Thanks to an explicit free expression protection added as a section to the state’s Education Code in 1977, California high school students were largely protected from the fallout of Hazelwood in the late 1980s. Unfortunately, in its current form, this section applies only to primary and secondary schools, not to universities. While lawmakers could go back and expand the protections, any new law — short of a constitutional amendment — would not be binding on UC administrators because of the autonomy granted to the UC Board of Regents under the state constitution.

I won’t hold my breath for the regents to suddenly discover the value of the unregulated press, given their terrible record on the issue. The university’s standing policies for student media, adopted in the 1970s, give the chancellor of each UC campus almost complete authority over student papers, including the ability to review the content of the publication. In an e-mail last spring to the Guardian, university lawyer Steven G. Rosen explained that the policy is currently not enforced, and that it was probably even illegal. However, Rosen wrote the e-mail several months before the 7th Circuit decision, and the university could now be having second thoughts.

While the UC faculty-controlled Academic Senate has fought its favorite social ills like the Patriot Act and restrictions on academic freedom, the body seems to have found no time over the past three decades to object to the university’s own totalitarian restrictions on student papers and urge for their repeal. I have little hope that they will start standing up for student press freedoms now.

Aside from my worst-case scenarios, though, this summer’s decision does have practical effects on California, thanks to a strange legal principle known as “qualified immunity.” Essentially, qualified immunity provides blanket protection against lawsuits for government employees no matter how guilty they may be, just as long as they don’t violate “clearly established” constitutional rights. In Hosty, the district court confirmed what most of already knew — that the press freedom of college journalists was just such a “clearly established” right and that by violating it, college administrators could find themselves in court. But this decision was reversed by the appeals court.

In practical terms, this changes the calculus of all college administrators, including our very own Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson. In the past, Watson and his colleagues may have hesitated before infringing on rights of student journalists for fear of being sued. After Hosty, however, the First Amendment rights of college papers are no longer “clearly established,” thus making individual administrators, including Watson, immune from lawsuits.

Now, if students believe their rights have been trampled upon, they will have to go after entire universities — with their armies of lawyers — and not individual Watsons, who can censor with impunity. Few student newspapers would have the resources to challenge the UC system, with its team of more than 30 lawyers, even if their rights have been legitimately violated.

I’m certain that the consequences for students will be severe. After Hazelwood, schools used their newfound censorship authority to block the publication of information on birth control and to prevent candidates from competing in student government elections because they made “rude comments” to administrators. As the four dissenting judges wrote in June, Hosty opens the door for unimaginable restrictions on expression on college campuses, too.

In the short term, the decision will likely have a chilling effect on the number of enterprising and investigative stories published by student papers, stories challenging the official feel-good press releases put out by universities. The long term looks much scarier.

It used to be that university papers were simply an extension of the “marketplace” of unfiltered discussions that universities represent in our society — places where innovative ideas came to fruition and official bureaucrats possessed no monopoly on information. Thanks to Hosty, though, it could just be all too soon until the Guardian becomes Big Brother Watson’s sanctioned Propaganda Ministry.

To exercise your First Amendment right, send your e-mail to vkogan@ ucsd.edu.