MORE ON SELF-INCRIMINATION

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Chafee-Sutherland statement on self-incrimination, as quoted in this morning's CRIMSON, fails to make two points of special Interest to members of the University community in view of the reports that Congress may investigate us. Both follow from the natural tendency of the public to conclude that a man who claims a privilege not to testify against himself thereby admits that he is guilty of the crime in question.

First, any member of the teaching profession who claims the privilege when teachers are the subject of investigation tends to cast discredit on the profession as a whole. Even when he has a clear legal right to refuse to testify, a teacher should weigh against his own self-protection his colleagues to help uphold the standing of his and their profession.

Second, "no person shall be compelled" must be understood to refer to compulsion by the Government. There is nothing unconstitutional in a private employer's threat to fire an employee if he refuses to testify. And, in view of the interest of universities in upholding the standing of the teaching profession, it is not surprising that some university administration have seen fit under some circumstances to use this type of private compulsion. The man who is discharged for his refusal to testify in such cases, whether innocent or not, is willing to appear guilty. His discharge helps to protect the rest of the profession, most of whom are innocent and willing to say so, from the otherwise inevitable discredit by association.

I do not mean to suggest that every claim of the privilege should automatically be followed by discharge on this ground is not always wicked. Robert Braucher   Professor of Law