No: he is trying to explain that the 5th ammendment was necessary because normal people understand that nobody has the right to expect an answer from you when asking you about your (possibly criminal) behaviour. However, normal people, when the ammendment was written, did not take this for granted when standing as witnesses (because it had not been taken for granted before, as history shows).

So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.

However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.

"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.