It’s starting to look like no aspect of education is safe from the grasping overreach of the judgitariat. Witness the latest ruling from a state Supreme Court judge in Manhattan, Walter Tolub, requiring New York University to re-admit a student it had suspended last year for drug possession. The student, Michael Quercia, was suspended in May 2005, after a campus police officer found about 10 ounces of marijuana, $1,740 in cash, and assorted drug paraphernalia in his dorm room. The criminal justice system ultimately fined him $95 and required him to perform 10 days of community service.

NYU administrators were less forgiving, however. In accord with sections of the student handbook governing disciplinary proceedings and laying out the range of possible penalties for just such an offense, the school elected to suspend Mr. Quercia at least until Fall 2007, at which point he may request re-admission. To be re-instated, the school decided, he would also have to perform 500 hours of community service.

Severe? Judge Tolub certainly thought so. He has ordered NYU to reinstate Mr. Quercia as soon as the once and future student completes 100 hours of community service. NYU will also have to allow Mr. Quercia to make up the coursework to clear the incomplete grades on his record after his abrupt mid-semester departure last year. At least the Judge has some common sense — he denied Mr. Quercia’s additional requests for more financial aid and a completely expunged record.

As judicial overreach goes, this is breathtaking. Judge Tolub’s reasoning is that the school’s penalty was “a draconian measure that is disproportionate to the offense committed” and thus runs afoul of basic fairness. However, that ignores the fact that, draconian or not, the private university makes its drug policy clear to all students.The relevant section of the handbook Mr. Quercia received as a student reads, “The unlawful possession, use, or distribution of drugs will not be tolerated on University premises. Upon finding evidence … the University will take appropriate disciplinary action, including … probation, suspension, or expulsion.”

So the school did exactly what it had told Mr. Quercia and all his fellow students it would do if they ever found themselves in the situation in which Mr. Quercia found himself. Judge Tolub’s exception-by-judicial-fiat sets a terrible precedent. A judge on the New York Supreme Court has now inserted himself into what should have been an internal matter of academic standing at a premier university. What next? Will judges start deciding that a university’s English curriculum is too draconian and force the college to graduate a student who failed upper level Austen? New York University intends to appeal this ruling, and all those invested in quality university education in the city are wishing it luck.