I dissent.
Upon the authority of our own decisions, as well as those of the United States Supreme Court, this court recently declared: “Moreover, a person may properly be required to disclose information relevant 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. (Pockman v. Leonard, 39 Cal. 2d 676, 687 [249 P.2d 267]; Christal v. Police Com., 33 Cal.App.2d 564, 567 et seq. [92 P.2d 416]; cf. Garner v. Board of Public Works, 341 U.S. 716, 719-720 [71 S,Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317]; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 492-493 [72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517, 27 A.L.R.2d 472].) A public employee, of course, cannot be forced to give an answer which may tend to incriminate him, but he may be required to choose between disclosing information and losing his employment.” (Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, 44 Cal.2d 816, 824-825 [285 P.2d 617].)
This was precisely the choice which defendant was required to make, and which he did make, when he appeared before the House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities in 1953. He there admittedly refused to answer a series of relevant questions on subjects specifically covered by section 12604 of the Education Code. Charges were filed by the superintendent, and defendant appeared at a meeting of the Board of Education in connection with those charges. Thereafter he was suspended and notified of the board’s intention to dismiss him. He then demanded a hearing, and the *506board filed the present action pursuant to section 13529 of the Education Code.
In the present action, a copy of the charges, together with a transcript of defendant’s testimony before the committee, were made a part of the complaint. Defendant admitted in his answer that he had been asked the questions by the committee and had refused to answer them. He offered no reasons for his refusal other than the claim that he was privileged to refuse to answer. Following trial, the court found that the charges were true and that they constituted grounds for dismissal. In my opinion, this judgment should be affirmed.
The majority opinion, which reverses the judgment, is based upon the majority’s construction of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551 [76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692]. I do not believe that the decision in the Slochower case requires a reversal here. It was decided by a sharply divided court, and the decision in that case should not be extended by this court to cover a wholly distinguishable situation.
In the Slochower case, the broad and vague charter provision is set forth in a footnote therein. It applied to any employee who refused “to answer any question regarding the property, government or affairs of the city or of any county included within its territorial limits, or regarding the nomination, election, appointment or official conduct of any officer or employee of the city or of any such county, ...” No provision was made for a hearing of any kind. On the contrary, the automatic effect of any such refusal was that “his term or tenure of office or employment shall terminate and such office or employment shall be vacant, ...” As stated by the court, “Dismissal under this provision is therefore automatic and there is no right to charges, notice, hearing, or opportunity to explain.” (350 U.S. 554.) It is therefore understandable that there could have been a difference of opinion among the members of the court on the question of due process. The majority in the Slochower case concluded that “the summary dismissal of appellant in the circumstances of this ease violates due process of law.” (350 U.S. 555.) It is further understandable, in view of the almost unlimited field which might be covered by questions purportedly relating to the numerous subjects covered by the charter, that the majority should have said: “No consideration is given to such factors as the subject matter of the questions, remoteness of the period to which they are directed, or justification for the exercise of the privilege.” (350 U.S. 558.)
*507Turning to the present ease, an entirely different situation is presented. Section 12604 of the Education Code is narrowly drawn both with respect to subject matter and time. It covers only the refusal to answer questions relating to (1) “present personal advocacy” of the forceful overthrow of government, or “present knowing membership in any organization which, to the knowledge of such employee, advocates” such forceful overthrow, or “present knowing membership of such employee in the Communist Party” or (2) “past knowing membership at any time since September 10, 1948” in such organizations. Thus the field of the questions which the employee was required to answer was strictly confined to the specific area which the Legislature reasonably deemed relevant to the question of such public employee’s loyalty to the government and his lack of subversive purposes. Furthermore, the field of the questions was limited in point of time to “any time since September 10, 1948.” Again said section 12604 did not provide for automatic dismissal but only for dismissal “in the manner provided by law.” This provision obviously contemplated a judicial hearing as provided by section 13529 of the Education Code, which judicial hearing was accorded to defendant. At that hearing he admitted his violation of the section and raised only the issue of the constitutionality of the section.
In my opinion, section 12604 is constitutional in all respects, and such constitutionality is not affected by the mandatory language thereof. The section provides that in the event of the employee’s refusal to answer questions relating to the limited field covered by the statute, he “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.” Thus the only issue to be determined in such cases upon judicial review under section 13529 is whether the defendant refused to answer relevant questions in the limited field covered by section 12604 when he was subpoenaed before, and questioned by, a legislative committee of the type therein described. The duty to answer such relevant questions is not an unreasonable requirement, as the harm is done when the teacher refuses to answer such questions in a public hearing before such a committee. Such refusal not only constitutes a violation of duty on the part of one holding a public position of honor and trust, but it tends to bring the employee under a cloud of suspicion concerning his loyalty to the very government to which he owes *508Ms appointment and to which he looks for his compensation. Such refusal likewise tends to destroy the confidence of the general public in our whole system of public education.
The majority opinion, however, does not meet squarely the issue of the constitutionality of section 12604. It is conceded therein that defendant has refused to answer relevant questions as required by that section, and that he has had a judicial review under section 13529. Nevertheless, it reverses the judgment of the trial court and remands the cause for “a determination of the sufficiency of his reasons for invoking the privilege.” The majority appears to reach this result upon the assumption that the decision in the Slochower case compels it, but I believe this to be an erroneous assumption. That case did not declare that a teacher could not constitutionally be “required to choose between disclosing information and losing his employment,” as we have heretofore held. (Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, supra, 44 Cal.2d 816, 824-825.) It merely held that the charter there under consideration, which provided for “summary dismissal” without any hearing, violated due process.
The equivocal declaration of the majority on the issue of constitutionality and the resulting remand for a further judicial hearing significantly furnish no guide to the trial court for the purpose of determining the “sufficiency” of any reasons which may be urged on a retrial for defendant’s refusal to answer the questions. If the section is constitutional, then under the admitted facts defendant was required to make his choice, which he did; and his reasons for making that choice would appear to be wholly immaterial. In other words, he was compelled to choose between complying with a reasonable duty imposed upon him by virtue of his position and, on the other hand, exercising his privilege and losing his position. (See Steinmetz v. California State Board of Education, supra, 44 Cal.2d 816, and authorities cited therein.) Thus the remand for a further hearing constitutes an idle act, for it launches the trial court upon an uncharted course to determine the “sufficiency” of reasons for defendant’s refusal, which reasons cannot be sufficient under the admitted facts.
In my opinion, the issue of the constitutionality should be met squarely, the statute should be held to be constitutional, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
Shenk, J., and McComb, J., concurred.