[Dominic Harr]

No, he is a state employee and as such he is constrained by the US Constitution.

???

I'm sorry, I don't understand . . . how did he violate the constitution?

He also won't give a letter unless he knows the person well, as he states there. And he could choose to only give a letter to someone from a given city, or any other requirement he wants -- it's a *PERSONAL* letter of reccommendation.

It is a letter that uses his personal reputation to reccommend someone. It is not a 'University' matter, as I understand it.

Am I mistaken?

[jwalsh07]

Dini's original cirteria, it was argued by his attorneys, was a requirment that viloated the free exercise clause of the US COnstitution becuase it required the student to avow a belief in something that could be antithetical to his religious beliefs. A public employee can make no such demands.

I think its questionable whether the original language in that criteria allowed for that conclusion but Dimi decided to change it so that it was not an affirmation of a belief. So, from where I sit, Dini saw himself as out of bounds and decided to switch rather than fight.

[Always Right]

He also won't give a letter unless he knows the person well, as he states there. And he could choose to only give a letter to someone from a given city, or any other requirement he wants -- it's a *PERSONAL* letter of reccommendation.

If it is a 'personal' letter, why does he use University Letterhead and include his position as a professor in the letter. That argument does not fly.