"Fifth Amendment" Communist has become such a standard phrase in Red-hunting newspapers that much of the public must believe that there has been no other kind in American universities. But Hunter College during the past few months has demonstrated little sympathy for former Communists who testify openly about their past cell experiences. When the College discovered last April that three of its professors had belonged to to the Party, and in one case had retained membership until 1949, it ordered them immediately suspended without pay.

In taking its strong stand against former Communist Party members, and alleging that by joining their ranks they were guilty of "conduct unbecoming a member of the staff," the Board of Education's trial board has taken a rather peculiar stand. Their decision implies that if a man has once been a Communist he can no longer be trusted to teach.

The odium of past membership in the Communist Party degrades a man's character as well. He can not, by implication of the board's proceedings, even be trusted to tell the truth. This can be the only explanation of the board's refusal to accept the verbal denials of present Communist membership by Professors Hughes and Weisner. Moreover, their immediate suspension without pay was hardly befitting faculty members of twenty- five years seniority.

Professor McGill is a separate case, as he admitted before the board that he lied to a New York legislative committee about Communist Party membership thirteen years ago.

Although all three professors testified fully and freely about their past activities in the "study group" at Hunter, they declined, on grounds of conscience, to relate the actions of other faculty members who had been members of the Communist Party at the same time. The board knew of these reasons; yet it demanded that the professors put compliance before conscience and answer all questions. The trial board then used their understandable reluctance to inform on others as a major count against them.

Considering the unfair procedures the board used against these men, any punishment upon its recommendation would seem unwarranted for Professors Hughes and Weisner. No group which presupposes that a man is not trustworthy is competent to judge him.