[Doctor Stochastic]

If either a) or c) are true then the government has a substantial interest in protecting the student's rights under the Constitution.

The student doesn't have a "right" to a letter of recommendation. This is something that the professor may or may not give. What you seem to be asking is that letters of recommendation be entitlements. Conservatives used to believe that rights were different from entitlements.

A right is the freedom to take an action. Rights to not compel others to give in to your wishes. If the government were to tell the student that he may not belive in Creationism (and threatening him with jail or death), that would be denial of a right.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

The student doesn't have a "right" to a letter of recommendation.

I have repeatedly explained on this thread that the right has to do with not being discriminated against based on race, gender, age, religion, etc. It does not have to do with a “right” to a letter. That is a total fabrication. It is not a right. Please see my post to Nebullis at 395

The a) and c) points are contained in this paragraph I posted at 329

If a) Dini is not being paid by government funds and, b) if Dini's job description does not include writing letters of recommendation and, c) if Texas Tech is not receiving any government funds, and d) if letters of recommendation are not required for medical school - then the student's case will not prevail in civil court.

If either a) or c) are true then the government has a substantial interest in protecting the student's rights under the Constitution. If any of these are true, the student has good cause.

Again, if government money is being used in the act of violating a citizen's constitutional rights, then the government has a substantial interest. This involves the government as party to the illegal conduct. They cannot just ignore it!