I dissent.Here the superior court very properly concluded from the record that judgment be entered dismissing appellants as school teachers in our public school system.
Appellants, husband and wife, were school teachers in Contra Costa County. They appeared before a subcommittee of the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on UnAmerican Activities in California. They were interrogated about past Communist Party membership and knowledge or connection with other organizations and persons. They refused to answer these questions.
On May 14, 1954, notices of intention to suspend and dismiss appellants as school teachers were served on them. Appellants demanded hearings and respondents instituted these actions in the Superior Court under Education Code, section 13529.
The specific testimony of appellants, cited in the charges filed against them, is as follows:
‘1Q. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party, Mr. Schuyten? A. I decline to answer.
“Q. Is it not a fact that you were a member of the Comma*56nist Party during the years 1946 and 1947 and up to and including a portion of the year 1950? A. I decline to answer.”
The testimony of appellant Inez Schuyten cited in the charges filed against her involved questions about her knowledge of or affiliation with the California Labor School, the Tom Payne Club of the Communist Party and the Joint AntiFacist Refugee Committee. She was asked if she attended meetings of the Communist Party held at the home of Professor Haakon Chevalier and if she was acquainted with Professor Chevalier or Frank Oppenheimer when she was an undergraduate at the University of California. All these questions she declined to answer asserting her constitutional and legal rights.
The following testimony also occurred:
“Is it not a fact, Mrs. Schuyten, that you were a member of the Communist Party at the time you accepted the position that you now attain and that your membership in the Communist Party continued during the years 1946, 1947 and up to and including part of the year 1950? A. I decline to answer.”
Section 12604 of the Education Code provides:
“It shall be the duty of any employee of any school district who may be subpoenaed by a United States Congressional Un-American Activities Committee or a subcommittee thereof or a California Legislative Un-American Activities Committee or a subcommittee thereof or any other committee or subcommittee of the United States Congress or the California Legislature or of either house of either thereof to appear before said committee or subcommittee and specifically to answer under oath a question or questions propounded by any member or counsel of the committee or subcommittee relating to:
“(a) Present personal advocacy by the employee of the forceful or violent overthrow of the Government of the United States or of any state or political subdivision.
“(b) Present knowing membership in any organization which, to the knowledge of such employee, advocates the forceful or violent overthrow of the Government of the United States or of any state or political subdivision.
“(c) Past knowing membership at any time since September 10, 1948, in any organization which, to the knowledge of such employee, during the time of the employee’s membership advocated the forceful or violent overthrow of the Govern*57ment of the United States or of any state or political subdivision.
“(d) Past knowing membership of such employee in the Communist Party at any time since September 10, 1948.
“(e) Present knowing membership of such employee in the Communist Party.
“Any employee who fails or refuses to answer under oath on any ground whatsoever any such question propounded by any member or counsel of any such committee or subcommittee shall be guilty of insubordination and guilty of violating this section and shall be suspended and dismissed from his employment in the manner provided by law.” (The 1955 amendment is not applicable here.)
Section 12607 provides :
“Any certificated employee of a school who violates any of the provisions of Sections 12601 to 12606 inclusive of this code shall be guilty of unprofessional conduct and shall be suspended and dismissed in the manner provided by law.”
Section 13521 provides in part: “No permanent employee shall be dismissed except for one or more of the following causes: . . .
“ (j) Violation of any provision in Section 12601 to 12607, inclusive, of this code. ’ ’
It was held in Board of Education v. Mass, 47 Cal.2d 494, 497 [304 P.2d 1015], that “The State of California has the power to require teachers in our public schools, as a condition to continued employment, to give evidence with respect to matters bearing upon their fitness to teach.” It has been established by legislative findings and judicial decisions that the Communist Party is a continuing conspiracy against our Government. Loyalty on the part of public employees is essential to orderly and dependable government and is therefore relevant to fitness for employment. A teacher may be properly required to disclose information relative to fitness and loyalty as a reasonable condition for obtaining or retaining public employment, even though the disclosure under some circumstances may amount to self-incrimination. (See Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, 44 Cal.2d 816 [285 P.2d 617].)
Appellants contend that there is no evidence that they violated the Dilworth Act. They claim that the only question propounded by the subcommittee relating to the categories listed was the one directed to each of them concerning whether each was a member of the Communist Party “during *58the years 1946, 1947, and up to and including part of the year 1950.”
Since subdivision (d) of section 12604 of the act involves “past knowing membership of such employee in the Communist Party at any time since September 10, 1948,” an employee could not be discharged for refusing to answer as to 1946 or 1947, but certainly could be discharged for refusing to answer as to membership since September 10, 1948. It is true that this question was somewhat compound, but it certainly was not misleading and did not result in any prejudice to the appellants. The question was clearly related to and included the subject matter of section 12604, subdivision (d). Appellants did not specifically object to the form of the question at the hearing, nor did their answer to the complaint raise that issue. There is no showing that they misunderstood the question and the record shows that they were clearly asked if they were members of the Communist Party since September 10, 1948.
Question asked by committee of John Schuyten was “Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Ans. “I decline to answer.”
Dilworth Act provides:
Subd.(e) Present knowing membership in Communist Party.
Subd.(c) Past knowing membership in Communist Party since September 10, 1948.
The question asked by the committee is substantially within the act and should have been answered.
The majority opinion reverses the judgment of the trial court on a technicality and without any showing of prejudice to the appellants. I cannot vote to overthrow the judgment of dismissal on such a technicality.
Furthermore, from the record the trial court impliedly found that appellants were not misled by the so-called compound questions and had no intention of answering any questions touching on their fitness to teach.
It is clear to me that the appellants have violated both the letter and the spirit of the Dilworth Act and they should be dismissed as school teachers. They have demonstrated their unfitness to teach our children in the public schools. Are the people of California required to retain school teachers who refuse to honestly and truthfully answer the questions herein-before set forth? In my opinion the answer is no, and the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.