The steady parade of witnesses who have invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege before congressional committees has focused public interest on this provision of the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, the growth in public interest has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in public understanding. Consideration of the subject has generally proceeded in the form of a debate between extremes. On the one hand, it is said that since the privilege is legal its claim is entirely neutral and implies nothing of significance about the witness. On the other, it is urged that the only reason a witness would refuse to answer is that he is "guilty" and that the claim of the privilege should itself automatically disqualify the witness from continuing in any position of public trust or confidence. With the recent intensification of congressional investigations into education, teachers who claimed the privilege have become embroiled in this problem. One thing seems clear: because of present public attitudes, the teacher who invokes the Fifth Amendment runs the serious risk that he will be discharged from his position and that his reputation will be ruined. What is much less apparent is whether such adverse consequences should flow from the exercise of the privilege. That is the legal and moral problem which is explored here. The privilege not to be a witness against oneself was an outgrowth of English and Colonial experience with the abuses of an inquisitorial system of justice. 1 The modem significance of the privilege is thus described by Dean Wigmore:
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.