Ethics of Writing Recommendation Letters, The

Academe, May/Jun 2006 by Schall, Joe

We all have to do it. Let's try to do it right.

The Dick Van Dyke Show offered many mini-lessons in good behavior, cautioning us about eavesdropping on our neighbors, sticking our big toe in the bathtub faucet, walking near ottomans, and-in episode 108-writing recommendation letters. In that episode, Neil Schenk, an old pal of main character Rob Petri, asks Rob to write him a positive recommendation letter for a job, playing on Rob's guilt about owing him an ancient favor. The hapless Rob waffles, feeling he can write only a neutral letter at best, leading Neil to write his own letter, which he manipulates Rob into signing. In the end, of course, the morally straight Rob opts to tell the truth to Neil and his prospective employer. Because it's the world of the sitcom. Rob and Neil's old friendship is nevertheless preserved.

In the real world of academia, almost every professor must regularly write recommendation letters. Although the ethics of the act are seldom discussed and rarely studied, at least two dissertations-both in the 1930s-tackled the subject of faculty recommendation letters. A 1936 study, A Scale for the Evaluation of School Administrators' Letters of Recommendation for Teachers, quotes actual letters written to recommend public schoolteachers. Note the directness and delightful irony in a few selections:

"Some people in this section have questioned her deportment on certain occasions. . . . I feel that she might do better work in another community."

"Miss N came to us a year ago. She has been in three different systems in the four years of her experience. . . . We don't feel that we should prevent Miss N from continuing her annual change."

"His pupils are fairly well interested in their work, but never excel. I believe you could procure his services at his present salary."

"Please destroy this letter when you have read it."

This last quotation is my favorite, both because it openly betrays the recommender's concern that the letter not "fall into the wrong hands," and because the reader of the letter obviously did not comply with the request. Even this small sampling demonstrates just how times have changed; it is hard to imagine writing a letter today with this kind of commentary and candor.

In some ways, however, things have stayed just the same. The following observations from a 1935 study, Letters of Recommendation: A Study of Letters of Recommendation as an Instrument in the Selection of Secondary School Teachers, remain pertinent today:

a. The writer of testimonials and letters of recommendation is likely to view his task lightly.

b. The writer for mere accommodation will often exceed his knowledge or falsify it.

c. There is no way of checking against errors.

d. Bias or carelessness of the writer is a factor.

e. The writer may overstate or underestimate the case of the candidate.

f. The writer may simply make inadequate statements perfunctory in character.

Before we sit down to write our next recommendation letter, we can address these problems by considering the relevant ethical issues.

Ethical Responsibilities

None of us got where we are professionally without the help of recommendation letters written on our behalf. Most of us therefore feel obliged to write letters for students whenever they ask. We do so recognizing that hyperbole in recommendation letters is common practice and vaguely fearing that the letter might somehow end up in a student's hands. Both credible praise and effective criticism are, however, part of our responsibility. Although it would be difficult to prove, I suspect that students who waive access rights to their letters rarely see them and seldom raise a fuss when they do see them-if we manage the circumstances properly. Further, we're not obliged to write letters simply because we're asked to do so.

Both faculty and students have certain protections built into the letter-writing process. Academic policies (and common sense) tell us to avoid making potentially discriminatory comments about race, gender, sexual orientation, politics, or disability. In 1974, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act gave students the right to inspect letters written about them. Later, the Buckley Amendment gave them the option of waiving access and required them to let their references know if they so chose. Confidential letters of recommendation are now the norm, and for good reason. All parties are more comfortable when a student opts for a confidential letter, and such a letter will likely be perceived as more honest. Thus, we typically urge students to waive their access rights by assuring them that doing so is the standard practice held in much higher favor by employers and selection committees.

A 2002 study by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Evaluation and the Academy: Are We Doing the Right Thing?, suggests a dual ethical responsibility to students and to the evaluators reading recommendation letters. On serving the needs of the evaluators: "A rephrased Golden Rule is the best guide: write to others the kind of letter of recommendation you would like to receive from them." Although by definition a recommendation letter will always be positive, recommenders serve their students and academia best by writing a letter in which praise is measured and exacting, where superlatives are backed up by examples, and where statistics about student ranking or quality are used with consistency and great care.