Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1956
File 040
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1956 - File 040. 1956-09. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. September 15, 2019. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/279/show/249.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-09). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1956 - File 040. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/279/show/249

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1956 - File 040, 1956-09, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed September 15, 2019, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/279/show/249.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 9, September 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date September 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 040
Transcript THE SUPREME COURT UNDER FIRE Opinions of the Court against the overthrow of the United States government, they are in no sense uniform. And our attention has not been called to any case where the prosecution has been successfully directed against an attempt to destroy state or local government. Some of these Acts are studiously drawn and purport to protect fundamenal rights by appropriate definitions, standards of proof, and orderly procedures in keeping with the avowed congressional purpose "to protect freedom from those who would destroy it, without infringing upon the freedom of all our people. . . ." Since we find that Congress has occupied the field to the exclusion of parallel state legislation, that the dominant interest of the federal government precludes state intervention, and that administration of state acts would conflict with the operation of the federal plan, we are convinced that the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is unassailable. . . . Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of City of New York SUMMARY: In this case a New York City college professor was discharged from his job. He had refused to answer questions about past Communist Party membership when he appeared before a congressional committee investigating matters of national security. A New York City municipal charter provision recptires the discharge, without notice or hearing, of a municipal employee for such refusal. It was pointed out that the employee had testified fully in response to similar questions in earlier appearances before an investigating body; also, that the municipal authorities had this information at the time of the employee's discharge. Five members of the Supreme Court held that the dismissal was improper. It was held that the municipal charter provision worked a denial of due process of law. Dissenting were Justices Reed, Minton, Burton, and Harlan. Mr. Justice Clark delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal brings into question the Page 38 (Continued from page 19) constitutionality of Section 903 of the Charter of the City of New York. That section provides that whenever an employee of the city utilizes the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid answering a question relating to his official conduct, "his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate ancl such office or employment shall be vacant, and he shall not be eligible to election or appointment to any office or employment under the city or any agency." Appellant Slochower invoked the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment before an investigating committee of the United States Senate, and was summarily discharged from his position as associate professor at Rrooklyn College, an institution maintained by the City of New York. He now claims that the charter provision, as applied to him, violates both the Due Process and Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. On September 24, 1952, the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate held open hearings in New York City. The investigation, conducted on a national scale, related to subversive influences in the American educational system. At the beginning of the hearings the chairman stated that education was primarily a state and local function, and therefore the inquiry would be limited to "considerations affecting national security, which are directly within the purview and authority of the subcommittee." Professor Slochower, when called to testify, stated that he was not a member of the Communist Party, and indicated complete willingness to answer all questions about his associations or political beliefs since 1941. But he refused to answer questions concerning his membership during 1940 ancl 1941 on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him. The Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee accepted Slochower's claim as a valid assertion of an admitted constitutional right. It had been alleged that Slochower was a Communist in 1941 in the testimony of one Bernard Grebanier before the Rapp-Courdert Committee of the New York Legislature.1 Slochower testified that he had appeared twice before the Rapp-Courdert Committee, and had subsequently testified befor the Board of Faculty relating to thil charge. He also testified that he hai answered questions at these hearing relating to his Communist affiliation in 1940 and 1941. Shortly alter testifying before th Internal Security Subcommittee Slochower was notified that he wa suspended from his position at th college: three days later his positio was declared vacant "pursuant to th provisions of Section 903 of the Nev York City Charter." It appears tha neither the Subcommittee nor Sloch. wer was aware that his claim of priv lege would result in bis discharge, an bar him permanently from boldin any position either in the city college or in the city government. Slochower Had Experience minati The intere Servio of inch »To sta Att practi Slochower had twenty-seven year experience as a college teacher an was entitled to tenure under stat law.2 . . . Under this statute, appellaf may be discharged only for cause, an after notice, hearing and appeal. . . The Court of Appeals of New York ""'st' however, has authoritatively inteqiret " '" ni ed Section 90.3 to mean that "the assef """I'1 tion of the privilege against sell """ ' incrimination i.s equivalent to a resiC " '" nation."4 . . . Dismissal under thi . . . . provision is therefore automatic an there is no right to charges, notic< hearing, or opportunity to explain. The Supreme Court of New York . "\ County of Kings, concluded that a] n , ( pellant's behavior fell within iV (() ,'■ Scope of Section 903, ancl upheld il *gn„i, application here » u.. J s Slochower argues that Section 90 jL . ., abridges a privilege or immunity of t.,)nst.-. citizen of the United States since it i ■ effect imposes a penalty on the extf valnil rise of a federally-guaranteed right' t-, a federal proceeding. It also violat' jia*jori due process, he argues, because d1 mockc mere claim of privilege under tl1 ;(s Fifth Amendment does not provide imj]r , reasonable basis for the state to ti' per,'llr ai „l il,,- Subcommith-, .1 il„- j,urn I.eirjsl s'niali ti.i Committee to Investigate Procedures "' innOCl Methods of Allocating State Moneys lot Put* -. Scliiail PurposM and Subversive Activities, Legi* 'lege n-,1- Document (11112 1. N„. 49, Sta I N. v.. \v||() ( 318. •VI, Kinney's New York Law.. Education U 9mblg Section (;2(i(i(2). 'Section (12(10(10). - . . . -Danimaii v. Board of Education, 306 NY S3 538, 119 NE 2d 373. If j, '■202 Misc. 915. 118 NYS 2d 487. Facts Foiu vi News, September, ZW Xl rs
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n009_040.jpg