"At the outset we must condemn the practice of imputing a sinister meaning to the exercise of a person's constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment . . . The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury."

The Court noted thta in application use of the Fifth Amendment was made grounds for dismissal, saying that "in practical effect the questions asked are taken as confessed and made the basis for the discharge."

The Court noted that in application use of the entirely, but objected to the city's invoking it in cases where the city had not done the questioning itself. Justice Clark noted that the city had information about Slochower from its own investigation of twelve years earlier, and he held that the city had no cause to discharge Slochower.

But Slochower's reinstatement, to be effected by lower courts sometime this fall, will be short-lived. Harry D. Gideonse, president of Brooklyn College, announced after the high court ruling that upon Slochower's reinstatement he would be suspended and face a department trial on charges of "untruthfulness and perjury." This will not affect Slochower's right to three and one half years of back pay, or about $30,000. Slochower's lawyer criticized Gideonse sharply, saying that "like Alice in Wonderland, Dr. Gideonse seems to believe that first comes his verdict and then comes the trial."

Meanwhile, the Court's decision had repercussions elsewhere. The West Virginia Board of Education cited the Slochower decision when it decided to keep an English instructor at Bluefield State College. Nathaniel Bond had refused to answer certain questions before an investigating committee, but the Board felt that it could not dismiss him before the end of his contract because of the high court's verdict.

Similarly, Frederick M. Raubinger, New Jersey State Commissioner of Education, ordered the Newark Board of Education to reinvestigate charges against three teachers whom it had fired. Estelle Laba, Robert Lowenstein and Perry Zimmerman had been fired in May, 1955 for invoking the Fifth Amendment before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Raubinger said that in light of the Slochower decision the Newark Board of Education must reopen their cases and hold additional hearings.

Dirk Struik

On September 12, 1951 Dirk J. Struik, professor of Mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was indicted by a Middlesex County jury for conspiring to overthrow the government of the Unites States and of Massachusetts and for advocating the overthrow of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by force.

This indictment followed Herbert A. Philbrick's testimony before the House Committee on Un-American Activities naming Struik as a lecturer before a secret Communist class. Previously, Struik had refused to tell the Committee if he had ever been a Communist. After the hearing, Struik freely told newspaperment that he was not a Communist but that he was a "Marxist scholar" and a "good Marxist." He labeled the charges as "absolute nonsense."

At that time James R. Killian, Jr., president of M.I.T., announced that Struik had been suspended with full pay pending the disposition of his case

Two days later, on September 15, Struik pleaded innocent to the charge that he had advocated the overthrow of the government "by speech, exhibition, distribution, and promulgation of certain printed and written documents. papers and pictoral representations." He said that he was in deep sympathy with the Communist fight for civil rights and had been "quite close" to them at one time. However, he said he had disliked the strict party discipline.

Struik had been formally indicted under the Massachusetts Anti-Anarchy Act of 1919, and his counsel soon brought forward a motion to quash this indictment. Counsel claimed that the law applied only to direct action anarchy. If they apply it to a teacher, counsel asserted, "then they are trying to punish free speech as such without relation to any action at all."

After four years of waiting, the case finally ended this year when the Court dismissed the indictment, acting on precedents set in the cases of Commonwealth v. Gilbert and Pennsylvania v. Nelson, where the U. S. Supreme Court decided that Congressional legislation on security matters had superceded state sedition laws.

One day later, M.I.T. ended Struik's four-and-one-half year suspension, but did so in a purely technical manner, since Struik was immediately put under the jurisdiction of an M.I.T. corporation Committee on Academic Responsibility.

The House Committee on Un-American Activities openly censured Harvard and several College professors for their pro-Struik actions. The committee said, "History alone will show how many of Struik's students were led by him down the road to Communism."