He was not surprised to be convicted. His alleged offense was said to have occurred five years earlier. The oral summons to his trial had given him an hour's notice. After his appearance he had been told that although he was not prohibited from consulting a lawyer, he must keep the identity of his accusers, his judges, and the witnesses secret on pain of facing still more charges. The system was obviously designed for one purpose: to convict.

Thomas K. is not the victim of a military dictatorship, nor is he a character in a Kafka novel. He is a citizen of the United States, and he was tried in New York City.

At Columbia University.

Thomas K. is a fictional character, but he could become real under a worst-case scenario based on the new "Sexual Misconduct Policy and Disciplinary Procedure" imposed this fall at Columbia. The activists who succeeded in getting this new procedure adopted wore ribbons of red tape to symbolize their claim that cases dealt with by the existing procedures had been tied up in red tape.

Columbia students are fortunate. Studying in the midst of one of the world's greatest cities, they enjoy access to a remarkable faculty and an extraordinary library. Yet they do not enjoy the smallest measure of fairness in disciplinary proceedings alleging sexual misconduct. At Columbia, such basic elements of fairness as the right to attend one's own trial or to confront accusers and witnesses have been contemptuously dismissed as "red tape."

It would not be appropriate to introduce the complex procedures of the courts into college discipline. But college discipline ought to be informed by the same concern for fairness and the truth that underlies judicial process in the courts. The new procedures at Columbia are devoid of any such concern.

The authors of these procedures may think they are streamlined and contemporary. But they are not; they are centuries old, and resemble nothing so much as the Court of Star Chamber. In this special court, English kings prosecuted subjects unrestrained by the hard-won freedoms afforded by the Common Law. There was no "red tape" in the Star Chamber.

It is not students alone whose rights are at risk at Columbia. In the law school, Professor Charles Fletcher, a distinguished theorist of the criminal law, has been warned by his dean that one of his exam questions is possibly illegal. The question posited a victim of assault who concluded that her assailant had done her a favor. The dean told Professor Fletcher that his question had angered some female students, and thus might have created a hostile learning environment in violation of the sexual harassment laws.

It would be bad enough if some ambitious prosecutor had invaded the campus and used the sexual harassment laws to censor tests. That the dean of a leading law school should show such indifference to First Amendment rights is almost beyond belief.

Fifty years ago, when academic freedom was under attack from the right, many college administrators surrendered without a fight. Now academic freedom is under attack from the left, and as the example of Columbia shows, administrators are leading the charge. And if a great university like Columbia behaves in this way, what can we expect from schools lacking its great tradition?

Some comfort can be taken in the fact that FIRE is on the case. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, co-founded by Boston's Harvey Silverglate and Alan Charles Kors of the University of Pennsylvania, has, in its short life, proven an extraordinarily effective champion of academic freedom. FIRE will not allow liberty to go down at Columbia without a tremendous battle. Supporters of due process and freedom of inquiry everywhere should join the fight.