their investigations on the anonymous pattern method. How does a liberal prove against unspecified charges anonymously preferred that he is and always has been anti-Communist both by inclination and by association? How does a person prove against unspecified charges, perhaps venomous spite-whispers, anonymously preferred, that he is now and always has been anti-homosexual both by inclination and by association? As our Puritan fore-fathers discovered through centuries of the Inquisition and the monarchial star chambers, one cannot prove innocence to circumstances which are of social rather than of personal contrivance. One can only stand his ground in the vigor of his personal integrity, and take refuge in the sanctuary of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment.

Just what is the refuge, and the implications made, by the invocation of the 5th Amendment? The Fifth Amendment is that section of the Constitution which protects a person from being forced to testify against himself, and which protects a wife from being forced to testify against her husband and vice versa. The Fifth Amednment recognizes and gives sanctuary to the inviolable right of every citizen to hold unto his own counsel areas of personal belief and opinion which need not be disclosed to anyone without the voluntary choice of the person himself. To such minority movements as the Jeffersonian opposition of 1796-1800, the Abolitionist opposition of 1845-1860, the Populist opposition of 1884-92, the refuge of the Fifth Amendment has been the steady bulwark of all Minorities against lynch-mobs and the scurrilous charactermurders of the press.

But refuge within the protective custody of the Fifth Amednment has its limitations, too. A person may invoke its protection only so long as he refutes any and all attempts to scrutinize his social freedom of personal conscience. For example, should a person be asked what he believes, or what political groups he belongs to, and the person answers these questions either affirmatively, negatively, or otherwise . . . he undoubtedly waives his right under the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer when asked if he is a homosexual. If a person, with the best intentions in the world, agreed to sign a "loyalty oath," and then at a future date was forced to submit to a question as to whether or not he/she were a homosexual, he, to all intents and purposes, could not expect to retain refuge under the Fifth Amendment.

An example will help to illustrate this. In one of our West Coast cities, a year or so ago, one of the airlines companies employed the FBI to do a thorough investigation of the private lives of its employees. A large percentage of the office staff were suspected of being homosexual. Called in to face an investigator and management one at a time, each employee was asked point

page 9