[rayiner]

The problem is Dryden's gut feeling gets the gist of the rule wrong. The gist is not: "you don't have to tell the government anything that might make you look bad." The gist is: "You can't be forced to testify at a witness against yourself in a criminal proceeding." The further away you get from that core scenario, the less likely the 5th amendment is going to apply.

You're right, Dryden didn't have time to hire a constitutional lawyer. But he shouldn't be teaching his gut feelings as constitutional law. He could have just said: "I don't think the school can make you fill out this survey, so feel free to opt out."

And yes, I realize I'm being horribly anal retentive here. I was taught a lot of misinformation and oversimplifications as a public school student.

[pdonis]

There's more to it than just whether the teacher was right or wrong, though. Let's suppose that he was wrong, that there is no 5th Amendment issue (the school board gave some reasons why that would be true, which are described in the article). Even so, why reprimand the teacher? Why not just release a statement saying that the teacher was incorrect in saying that there is a 5th Amendment issue involved (giving the reasons why), and leave it at that? Then the teacher could discuss that with his class; was he right or wrong? The students could actually debate the question and learn something--they might even learn the lesson the teacher was really trying to teach, which is, never take any authority's word without question--always consider the possibility that they might be wrong.

Instead, the school board is teaching the students a very different lesson: that our society is run, not by reasoned debate, but by arbitrary exercises of power.

[rayiner]

I don't disagree with your point or agree with the school board's actions. This story contains two things that drive me nuts: 1) teachers talking out of their ass; 2) school administrators being petty assholes.

[sk5t]

Suppose the government sent you a non-anonymous survey inquiring about your various activities, ostensibly for the purpose of shaping national health care policy, but not explicitly disclaiming the option of using the responses for other purposes? Do you believe the 5th would shield you from admitting to crimes in this case?