|
« AAUP Homepage
|
State of the Profession: Student Right or Faculty Prerogative?
By Martin D. Snyder
Texas Tech biology professor Michael Dini is an honest man who cares deeply about his teaching. He cares about what he teaches, how he teaches it, and especially about how he evaluates his students. He has set his standards high. He expects students, as his Web site declares, "not only to know what biologists know, but also to think like biologists think, and to express these thoughts in writing." Dini demands that students achieve academic success in his classes the old-fashioned way, without shortcuts, "by demonstrating understanding, understanding that comes from spending quality time grappling with the subject matter." Not surprisingly, the Ottawa Citizen referred to "tough-talking" Dini as "the Clint Eastwood of biologists."
Dedicated to the achievement of excellence and the elimination of mediocrity, Dini seems to be the very sort of no-nonsense educator likely to appeal to conservatives in the Bush administration. So why did the U.S. Department of Justice investigate this man? The improbable answer to that question is Dini's Web-stated policy on writing letters of recommendation. Students who seek a letter of recommendation from Dini for graduate or professional school in the biomedical sciences must meet three criteria: they must have earned an "A" in one of Dini's courses; they must make themselves "fairly well" known to him; and they must be prepared, when meeting with him, to give a scientific answer to the question: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" Dini suggests that a student who cannot give a scientific answer to this question should not seek his recommendation.
The Justice Department's ill-considered interest in Dini's letter-writing policy stemmed from a complaint by a former Texas Tech student who does not believe in evolution. The student, after viewing Dini's Web site, transferred to Lubbock Christian University, where he successfully solicited a letter of recommendation to medical school. The student's complaint was supported by the Liberty Legal Institute of Plano, Texas, which accused Dini of religious discrimination and violation of academic freedom.
A few salient facts suggest that the student's complaint was without merit. First, the student never actually asked Dini for a recommendation. Second, there were many other biology professors with whom the student might have studied and from whom he might have requested a letter of recommendation. Third, the student never took his complaint to anyone at Texas Tech. He went straight to the Justice Department. Finally, Dini's last criterion for a recommendation letter requires a scientific answer to a scientific question. Dini is not discriminating against religious belief; he is merely saying that to provide a religious answer to a scientific question is inappropriate and betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise. He chooses not to recommend for advanced study in the biomedical sciences any student who lacks this understanding.
The issues here are complex, dealing with evolution, religion, the nature of science, and scientific certainty. And from the Association's perspective, there is, of course, the matter of academic freedom. Does a student have a right to a letter of recommendation, that is, a testament of approbation, from the professor of his or her choice, and is the professor obligated to provide such a letter? Fundamental principles of academic freedom and long-standing practice in academe suggest that the answer is no.
Evaluation is a core faculty function. Faculty evaluate students, they evaluate administrators, they evaluate each other. Faculty evaluation of students takes two basic forms: course grades and letters of recommendation. Grades provide an objective indicator of how well students have mastered the content of a course. Every student has a right to a grade report and transcript attesting to his or her achievements.
Recommendation letters, on the other hand, tell external audiences how well qualified students are to pursue professional or career paths after graduation. Such letters are subjective judgments issued, when deserved, at the discretion of the faculty member. Students, administrators, or external interest groups cannot coerce professors into violating their professional standards and personal integrity by composing letters that mislead potential employers or graduate admissions officers. Such letters do not serve the interests of the students themselves, the profession, or society at large. For refusing to write mendacious letters of recommendation and for preserving his professional and intellectual integrity, Michael "Clint Eastwood" Dini deserves the praise of the profession, not the meddling interference of the Justice Department. Go ahead, Michael, make my day!
Martin Snyder is AAUP director of planning and development.
|