Paul Smith wrote: > The discrimination is between truth and falsehood, and that's not > something that many of us are willing to abandon, nor should we. We have a
<snip> Beautifully stated. I'll bet when you were typing that your face got all red like one of those fire and brimstone preachers. I'm simply pointing out this: If this line of thought was being used in a hiring decision it would be illegal. The test (beliefs about evolution) would produce adverse impact against various religious groups. Adverse impact, by itself, is not illegal. An employer is allowed to use a test with adverse impact if the test predicts job performance. But the burden of proof shifts to the employer. So one would need evidence (not Paul B.'s "general observations" [good grief!]) that these beliefs are related to job performance (Griggs vs. Duke Power). The line of thought advocated by the Biology teacher probably isn't illegal when it comes to refusing to write a letter. But if you feel good about yourself using the same process that is deemed illegal in the selection process, go ahead. I think more than anything, this discussion is showing one of the reasons that letters of rec. have low validity. Because the people writing them...oh, never mind. One more thing: >A few people seem to have assumed that the controversial letters >of recommendation concerned application to graduate school in >psychology or counselling. They did not. It was application to >medical school. My response was to Paul B. who specifically mentioned the same idea with respect to graduate school in psychology. My argument above, however, applies to either setting. Where's the evidence that beliefs about evolution are related to medical school, graduate school, or professional performance? Al --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
