Biased Letters of Recommendation

Letters of recommendation are often seen as a gateway to academic and professional opportunities. Yet, their subjective nature can turn them into tools of bias, perpetuating systemic inequalities and academic abuse.

Letters of recommendation or reference began to be a required part of the application process in the early part of the 20th century at Harvard, Princeton and Yale Universities expressly to limit admission to marginalized groups, including African Americans, Catholics and especially Jews. As sociologist Jerome Karabel wrote in The Chosen, this new application process allowed “the rejection of scholastically brilliant boys considered ‘undesirable,’ and it granted the director of admissions broad latitude to admit boys of good background with weak academic records” -- namely white and wealthy Protestants. This assessment of a prospective student’s "character" via noncognitive qualities allowed for an illusion of meritocracy while maintaining a selection process that was inherently classist and racist.

- Inside Higher Ed, April 9, 2019

What Makes Letters of Recommendation Abusive?

Implicit Bias

Letters often reflect the unconscious biases of the recommender. Women, BIPOC individuals, and LGBTQ+ students or faculty are frequently described with less powerful or less professional language, reinforcing harmful stereotypes.

• Examples for Students:

  • A male student is described as “a leader with outstanding potential,” while a female student is labeled “diligent and hardworking.”

  • An international student’s language skills are highlighted negatively, while their academic achievements are downplayed.

  • A student with a disability is described as “inspiring” rather than capable.

• Examples for Employees:

  • A woman applying for tenure is described as “collaborative,” while male colleagues are described as “visionary.”

  • A BIPOC employee’s technical skills are overlooked in favor of comments about their “friendly demeanor.”

  • An LGBTQ+ faculty member’s research is dismissed as “niche” or “personal” rather than impactful.

Gatekeeping

Recommenders use their letters—or their refusal to write one—to control access to opportunities, disproportionately affecting those who challenge authority or deviate from expectations.

• Examples for Students:

  • A professor denies a letter to a student who asked critical questions during class discussions.

  • A first-generation college student is told, “I don’t know you well enough,” despite excelling in class.

  • A student from an underrepresented group receives a vague letter that fails to highlight their strengths.

• Examples for Employees:

  • A faculty member writes a lukewarm letter for a colleague seeking promotion because they view them as competition.

  • A supervisor denies a letter of recommendation to an employee who reported workplace discrimination.

  • A junior faculty member is warned not to “rock the boat” if they want a strong letter for tenure.

Retaliation

Letters can be weaponized as a form of punishment for individuals who speak out against abuse or discrimination.

• Examples for Students:

  • A professor writes a negative letter after a student reports them for misconduct.

  • A student who challenged grading policies receives a generic letter that fails to showcase their achievements.

  • A student in a marginalized group is subtly undermined in the letter with phrases like “persevered despite challenges.”

• Examples for Employees:

  • A faculty member writes a vague letter for a colleague who filed a grievance against the department.

  • An employee who declined extra unpaid work is described as “uncooperative” in their letter.

  • A recommender hints at a former employee’s “difficult personality” as a veiled form of retaliation.

The Impact of Biased Letters

• Career Stagnation: Weak or biased letters can derail career trajectories for both students and employees.

• Reinforced Inequities: Bias in letters compounds existing systemic discrimination based on race, gender, disability, or other identities.

• Psychological Harm: The stress of knowing future opportunities rely on subjective and potentially biased evaluations can be overwhelming.

• Silencing Reporting: The reliance on recommendation letters for future opportunities often discourages students and employees from reporting workplace misconduct. Fear of retaliation or receiving a negative or vague letter leads many to endure toxic or abusive environments rather than risk their careers.

What Can Institutions Do Better?

1. Advocate for Transparency: Institutions should allow students to see their letters and verify their accuracy. Employers should establish clear policies for objective and fair letters.

2. Train Recommenders: Professors should undergo bias training to identify and mitigate discriminatory language. Supervisors and senior faculty should learn how to write equitable and unbiased letters.

3. Explore Alternatives: Supplement letters with objective metrics, such as project portfolios or assessments. Advocate for anonymized peer reviews or interviews in hiring and promotion processes.

4. Remove Letters of Recommendation from Admissions and Hiring Processes

   • Why It Matters: Letters of recommendation often perpetuate inequities, as access to strong recommenders is not equally distributed. Students from underrepresented backgrounds, first-generation college students, and employees in marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted by gatekeeping, bias, and retaliation.

   • Alternatives: Replace letters with:

     • Objective Metrics: Use standardized performance measures, portfolios, or test scores to evaluate students.

     • Structured Interviews: For hiring processes, conduct interviews that focus on job-relevant skills rather than subjective endorsements.

     • Transparent Criteria: Admissions and hiring should focus on quantifiable achievements and qualifications rather than personal connections.

   • Impact: Eliminating recommendation letters would reduce bias, promote fairness, and allow opportunities to be based on merit rather than access to privilege.

What to Do If You Suspect You’ve Received a Biased Letter of Recommendation?

Receiving a biased or weak letter can feel demoralizing, but there are steps you can take to address the situation.

1. Request a Copy of the Letter (If Possible)

   • Students: Some institutions allow students to waive or retain access to their recommendation letters. If you suspect bias, check whether you waived your right to view the letter.

   • Employees: In professional contexts, politely request a copy of the letter, particularly if you suspect it played a role in a denied opportunity.

2. Evaluate the Language: Look for red flags in the letter:

   • Weak Praise: Phrases like “did their best” or “was adequate” rather than specific examples of accomplishments.

   • Stereotypes: Descriptions that rely on gender, racial, or other biased language.

   • Vagueness: Lack of meaningful content about your skills or achievements, which can signal indifference or intentional undermining.

3. Advocate for Yourself

   • For Students: If the letter is part of an admissions process, consider addressing concerns directly with the admissions office. Provide supplemental materials, like a personal statement or portfolio, to highlight your achievements.

   • For Employees: If possible, request additional references from colleagues or supervisors who can provide a stronger and more objective recommendation.

4. Discuss with the Recommender (If Safe)

   • Approach the recommender tactfully to discuss your concerns:

     Example: “I noticed the letter didn’t highlight some of my key achievements. Would you be open to revising it to include XYZ?”

   • If you suspect intentional bias or retaliation, document the conversation for your records.

5. Build a Stronger Network of Support

   • Seek out additional mentors or colleagues who can provide future recommendations.

   • Cultivate relationships with individuals who understand your skills and potential and are willing to advocate for you.

6. Report or Escalate (If Necessary)

   • Students: If you suspect retaliation or intentional bias, report the issue to your institution’s grievance office or Title IX office (if applicable).

   • Employees: Use workplace grievance channels or consult legal counsel if the bias could be linked to discrimination or retaliation.

7. Learn and Plan for the Future

   • Use the experience to inform your approach to future recommendation requests:

   • Choose recommenders who have a track record of supporting you.

   • Provide them with a clear list of your achievements and goals to guide their writing.

Additional Information

Articles and Research

• Letters of Recommendation: Just Say No [Inside Higher Ed]

• Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty [Discourse & Society Journal]

• Help That Hurts Women [Inside higher Ed]

• Men Are Twice As Likely To Get Outstanding Letters Of Recommendation [HuffPost]

• Language matters! Letters of recommendations are biased, but we can change that! [Fred Hutch Cancer Center]

Helpful Resources

• Academic Parity Movement

  • https://paritymovement.org/

• Anonymous Reporting

  • Anonymous Tip Line: A platform for reporting academic misconduct anonymously.

• National Disability Rights Network

  • NDRN: Advocacy for students facing ableism in educational environments.

• The Trevor Project

  • The Trevor Project: Support for LGBTQ+ students navigating discrimination.

• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

  • ACLU: Resources and legal guidance on a range of discrimination issues.

• Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

  • U.S. Department of Education OCR: Official channel for reporting discrimination in education

Mental Health Support

The National Grad Crisis Line	Free, confidential telephone counseling, crisis intervention, suicide prevention, and information and referral services provided by specially-trained call-takers. Caring, professional staff and well-trained volunteers answer around the clock.
BetterHelp Grad	A month of free therapy for grad students and a reduced rate for ongoing support.