No, because we're talking specifically about whether any policy about letters of recommmendation is inherently discriminatory. The only relevant policy is the policy, if any, regarding those letters - you cannot simply substitute one policy for another on the assumption that all policies are equivalent. Discussions of any other policy are absolutely, 100% irrelevant.
And the fact that you're stuck with is that Texas Tech's "official policy" on letters of recommendation cannot possibly be construed as discriminatory. Why? Because there is no such policy. They have no policy on letters of recommendation, no guidelines, no formal rules governing such. The only university policy that can be said to exist is the informal policy of "let the professors individually decide for themselves on whose behalf they will or will not write letters".
There's a distinct lack of governance here, on the part of the university. They make no attempt whatsoever to regulate or govern the content, form, or issuance of letters of recommendation. Why? Because when a professor writes such a letter, he writes it for himself, on his own behalf, expressing his own opinion, not the opinion or position of the institution. Forget about Dini being an agent of the state - the university implicitly denies this contention that Dini is even acting as an agent of the university when he writes those letters, let alone acting as an agent of the state.
There is no policy regarding letter of recommendation. Letters of recommendation are not mentioned in any description of the official duties of a professor that I can find. The upshot is, when Dini writes a letter, he writes it as a free agent, not as an agent of either the state or the university; hence, he cannot be construed as a government agent WRT the civil rights laws.
I know you disagree strenuously with this interpretation, but I must say that I can find virtually no legal support whatsoever for your preferred interpretation, and several practical reasons not to adopt it now. IMO, despite its roots in the Drug War, SCOTUS accidentally stumbled on an eminently sensible doctrine in Smith - not that it matters, since Dini has the luxury of being a private actor.
So, I think we will have to agree to disagree for now. Even though it doesn't seem to be happening right now, I think that eventually you will come to understand that I am right.
Hugs!
:^)
Evidently, your position is that the case is about letters of recommendation - whereas mine is that the case is about a) constitutional rights and b) discrimination.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see where it goes.
Thank you for the excellent debate. Hugs!!!
Let's see, the professor likely uses school letterhead, probably writes them useing school resources such as computers and office space, posts his bigoted policy on the schools website, the professor uses his school title as authority to write the recomendation and and the university has been made aware of his policy. I think it is nuts if the university thinks it can declare its innocense because it has a hands off policy. The university can not knowly allow such discriminitory practices by its employees especially using school resources and directly effecting its students. It boggles my mind. No business or other public institution could get away with such utter nonsense.