[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Where precisely is the discrimination?

To quote again the Supreme Court decision in Thomas v. Review Board (emphasis mine):

A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial The student is being indirectly compelled to violate his beliefs which is a burden upon religion and thus a substantial infringement on his free excercise rights.

[Catspaw]

Looks like Thomas is a case involving a Jehovah Witness voluntarily terminating his employment, then being denied unemployment benefits. How this applies to a student who didn't take a class because he thought the professor wouldn't give him a letter of recommendation is murky at best.

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=%5Bgroup+f_freedom+of+religion!3A%5D/doc/%7Bt81463%7D/hit_headings/words=4/pageitems=%7Bbody%7D

[Doctor Stochastic]

The student is being indirectly compelled to violate his beliefs which is a burden upon religion and thus a substantial infringement on his free excercise rights.

Only if you believe that a letter of recommendation is an entitlement, sort of like a social promotion.

[Under the Radar]

In Thomas, Burger also wrote:

"The mere fact that the petitioner's religious practice is burdened by a governmental program does not mean that an exemption accommodating his practice must be granted. The state may justify an inroad on religious liberty by showing that it is the least restrictive means of achieving some compelling state interest. However, it is still true that "[t]he essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order . . . can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S., at 215, 92 S.Ct., at 1533." (450 U.S. 707 at 718).

It seems to me that Texas Tech will be able to slam dunk the question as to whether the state has a compelling interest in promoting in its scientists a belief in the scientific method. Be that as it may, I am not convinced this is the best applicable case from the USSC regarding the First Amendment as it would apply to this issue.

Furthermore, like Catspaw, I don't see where the young man has standing to sue. Had he had any sense, he would have taken the course, professed his believe in Evolution, asked for a recommendation, and only kicked up his heels once he was turned down. As it is, the case is a non-starter. There is no there there.