As an educator, crafting a college recommendation letter is a significant act; it reflects my personal integrity and commitment to supporting young individuals as they embark on their futures. If a student engages in behavior that I find troubling—such as committing a hate crime—I am fully justified in withdrawing my support.
It’s essential to acknowledge that I am under no obligation to write recommendations for students. I willingly dedicate my time to this task outside of school hours, meaning it is not a part of my official duties, nor am I compensated for it. These letters are my own; therefore, the responsibility to retract one lies solely with me, although I would never take such a step lightly or without careful consideration.
Recently, a controversy erupted in a Massachusetts community after a teacher decided to rescind a recommendation for a student who had used tape to create a swastika on a school wall. Three teachers in Stoughton faced disciplinary actions due to their responses to the incident, which the police ruled did not qualify as a hate crime. The school chose not to inform parents, which led to outrage among some community members.
Typically, these situations are seen as opportunities for education. However, the student’s parents expressed that it was “unfair” for teachers to discuss their child’s actions constructively. This parental instinct to defend their child, rather than allow them to face the consequences of their actions, is a familiar theme for educators.
One teacher went beyond classroom discussions; they contacted a college to rescind their letter of recommendation and provided a detailed explanation for this action. This prompted complaints from the student’s parents to the school board, claiming that the teacher’s decision was detrimental to their child. The outcome? The superintendent issued a 20-day suspension to the teacher.
However, it’s crucial to highlight that teachers are not contractually bound to conceal a student’s actions from colleges. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), schools can disclose student records without parental consent for admission purposes. This includes cases where a student seeks enrollment in another institution. Therefore, a teacher’s decision to rescind a recommendation and share relevant information is well within their rights.
From both a personal and professional standpoint, I would have no reservations about distancing myself from a student involved in such an act. The student’s actions are undeniably a hate crime, justifying the decision to withdraw support.
Every action has consequences. In this case, the student should face disciplinary measures for their behavior, not the teachers who aimed to educate others about the seriousness of bigotry and anti-Semitism, or those who chose to withhold recommendations based on the student’s misconduct. The teacher in question made a principled choice and deserves reinstatement. As parents, we must strive to refrain from defending our children in every instance, especially when they are clearly in the wrong.
For additional insights on home insemination, check out this post about the Cryobaby Home Intracervical Insemination Syringe Kit Combo. For more information on pregnancy expectations, visit this trusted resource on this topic. You can also explore various family-building options at Resolve.
Summary
This article discusses the autonomy of teachers in writing and rescinding recommendation letters, particularly in light of a Massachusetts incident involving a student who committed a hate crime. It emphasizes the importance of consequences for actions and the right of educators to maintain their integrity when endorsing students. The piece also highlights the role of parental involvement and the need for accountability in such situations.