LAW STUDENT TAKES ISSUE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

After reading the full text of the statement by Professors Chafee and Sutherland concerning the privilege against self-incrimination, I became disturbed, not by anything which was said, but rather by the manner in which some people may interpret the statement in the light of current events. The privilege is controversial today when employed by witnesses who refuse to answer questions concerning membership in the Communist Party or in other political organizations. Some people may infer from their statement that Professors Chafee and Sutherland believe that no loyal American should invoke the privilege and refuse to answer, and that there is no justification for seeking to protect one's friends and family. I do not believe any such inference is proper. In a book published in May 1952, Professor Chafee stated at length his opposition to investigations of political loyalty and his recognition that the privilege against self-incrimination may be the only method of an individual being protected against the "dirty, mean and unworthy" questions. I quote.

"One frequent line of questioning by investigating bodies is to me abominable. After the investigated person has been asked whether he ever belonged to some "subversive" organization--remember that the range goes far beyond the Communist Party--the next question may be, "Name your associates" or "Were X and Y also in this organizations?" The law, of course, gives no privilege against betraying one's friends, and yet no decent American would request such a betrayal, so long as no heinous crime is Involved. It is ingrained in schoolboys not to "peach" on a comrade, and any school-teacher who asked them to do so it not fit for his job.

"It is this mean and unworthy thing' (to inform) which investigators are now trying to force citizens to do, in the name of Americanism. The only sure way to evade this dirty question is to remain silent throughout the whole hearing, through claiming a privilege against self-incrimination regardless of the very damaging effect of such a claim on a person's career." Chafee, Thirty-Five Years with Freedom of Speech 27-28 (1952). (bold-face added).

In the continuing defense of academic freedom, and particularly in view of the expected visit of the House Un-American Activities Committee to our campus, it would do well to keep these words of Professor Chafee in mind when we are called upon to judge the conduct of our teachers and fellow students. Herbert Semmel 3L