TO:	The Crimson
FROM:	Professor Charles Nesson
RE:	The Carol Thompson Memo

____________________________________________________________________________

The March 27th memo on "The Tenure Appointment Process in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences," issued by Carol Thompson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, suggests several questions in connection to the case of Peter Berkowitz.

Regarding the Search:

1) Who was on the "departmental search committee" that formed the "comparison list of scholars" used for the "blind letter" in Berkowitz's case?

2) Who was on the "comparison list of scholars"?

3) To whom were "blind letters" sent?

4) Who decided to whom "blind letters" would be sent?

5) Were those asked to respond to the "blind letter" told that Berkowitz was the candidate?

6) Who were considered to be the "senior members" of the department in Berkowitz's case?

7) After the positive vote in the Government Department, which Academic Deans reviewed Berkowitz's dossier to insure the integrity of "the procedural aspects of the search"?

Regarding the Ad Hoc Committee Review:

1) Did Berkowitz's ad hoc committee consist of three "field specialists" or "experts in the field" from other universities and two Harvard colleagues from "related disciplines"?

2) How was the "field" defined in Berkowitz's case?

3) Were the scholars from outside Harvard experts in the field?

4) What were considered to be "related disciplines"?

5) Which Associate Dean determined the membership of the ad hoc committee in Berkowitz's case? In making up the ad hoc committee in Berkowitz's case, with whom did the Associate Dean consult?

6) Who suggested the names of those who made up the ad hoc committee?

7) Had any of those selected for membership on the ad hoc committee written "especially thoughtful blind letters" which could be said to be negative to Berkowitz's promotion? Were any writers of "especially thoughtful blind letters" which were favorable to Berkowitz's promotion passed by for selection to Berkowitz's ad hoc committee?

8) Associate Deans responsible for forming ad hoc committees "are not, of course, involved in cases from their own departments." What is the reason that Associate Deans recuse themselves from cases involving their own departments? Would it apply to cases from departments in which the spouses of Deans for Academic Affairs have appointments? Would it apply to Associate Provosts and require them to avoid involvement in cases from their own departments?

9) If, as stated, the Dean and the President do not take part in the ad hoc committee selection process, who is responsible for seeing that it is fairly done by the Associate Dean?

10) Is any inquiry made or concern otherwise expressed by the Associate Dean about bias of those selected?

11) What inquiry or concern was expressed, if any, in Berkowitz's case?

12) The stated purpose of the ad hoc committee is "to advise the president not only on the quality of the candidate, but also on the state of the department and that of the field in which the appointment is proposed." Did the ad hoc committee in Berkowitz's case offer the President any advice on the state of the government department or the state of the field in which Berkowitz's appointment was proposed?