The following Editorial is reprinted from the Washington Post. It is, in the opinion of the CRIMSON, one of the best statements to appear in the press on the Fairbank controversy.

The unhappy case of Professor John K. Fairbank of Harvard University presents a challenge to all Americans who rejoice in the claim that they live under a government of laws. Professor Fairbank, in charge of Modern Chinese Studies at Harvard, a scholar of the first rank in his field and a man of the highest repute among his professional colleagues, was granted leave of absence for a year's study in Japan on a Guggenheim Fellowship and Social Science Research Council travel grant. Having made all the necessary preparations for his trip, he was apprised in a terse note from the Military District of Washington that, for unexplained reasons, he could not be granted a military permit to enter Japan. The matter is now under review by the Army.

Presumably, the denial of a permit to Professor Fairbank was based on derogatory testimony concerning him by two former Communists appearing before the McCarran Subcommittee. Mr. Fairbank has filed with the subcommittee a sworn affidavit categorically denying the allegations--which were, in part at least, mere hearsay; but he has had no opportunity to make a public answer before the subcommittee which permitted the charges to be made publicly. No form of trial is available to him since he has not been charged with any crime and since the allegations about him were made under the protection of congressional immunity. Not even a Loyalty Board clearance procedure is open to him since he is not a Government employe.

Yet Mr. Fairbank has sustained serious injuries--not only in terms of his opportunities for study but in terms of his reputation and his professional career. Harvard University suffers from this situation, too. The young men who studied under him, a number of whom may be candidates for Government intelligence and research jobs, are directly affected. And, what is of even graver significance, the country is deprived, until this stigma is eradicated, of the intelligence and specialized knowledge of the Far East which he could contribute to its councils. The hachet men of the Chinese Lobby have now succeeded in disqualifying for public service almost every American of stature who has shown the slightest deviation from absolute devotion to Chiang Kaishek.

What possible danger to American security could arise from Mr. Fairbank's presence in Japan? If he departed in any improper way from the scholarly work to which he is committed, his military permit could be withdrawn. But aparently someone in the Army's lower echelons decided to bar him arbitrarily in order to avoid any risk of future abuse from Senator McCarthy or Senator McCarran. He was protecting his own neck, and the Army's appropriations, not national security. The Fairbank case is far from unique; other citizens have suffered from the same kind of intimidation among Governmen officials. Yet this is a way of dealing with individuals much more in keeping with totalitarian ideas than with the traditions of a free society.