June 1996

Professor Berkowitz meets with Professor Kenneth Shepsle, chair of the Department of Government, to discuss Berkowitz's upcoming tenure review.

September 1996

Professor Berkowitz's colleague in the Department of Government, Professor Dennis Thompson, also Director of the Program in Ethics and the Professions in the Kennedy School of Government, is appointed by President Neil L. Rudenstine to the newly created position of associate provost of the University. As associate provost of the University, Thompson advises the president on "substantial academic issues" ("Thompson Named Associate Provost," in the Harvard University Gazette, September 19, 1996, pp. 1, 6).

October 1996

Professor Berkowitz completes his second book, Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism, and signs a contract with Princeton University Press.
On October 15, Professor Berkowitz submits his dossier containing all of his published and to-be-published work to the departmental search committee, the first major step in the tenure review process. The dossier includes a draft of his forthcoming review of Dennis Thompson's and Amy Gutmann's (professor of politics and then dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Princeton University) book, Democracy and Disagreement.
The departmental search committee develops a “comparison list of scholars” and composes a “blind letter.” According to Harvard's tenure review procedures in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the department must submit the blind letter to "Carol Thompson [associate dean for academic affairs and spouse of Associate Provost of the University and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson] or Laura Gordon Fisher for review on the Dean's behalf" (a requirement that is omitted from the account provided in Carol J. Thompson's memo of March 27, 1998 clarifying the tenure reivew process at Harvard). The blind letter is then sent to “leading scholars at other institutions.” These scholars too must be approved by the Office of the Dean.

November 1996

Professor Berkowitz publishes "The
Debating Society" (The New Republic, November 25, 1996, pp. 36-42), a critique of Dennis Thompson's and Amy Gutmann's views on deliberative democracy.

December 1996

The Department of Government conducts its initial discucssion of Professor Berkowitz's promotion and tenure. It also discusss the tenure of Berkowitz's colleague Professor Bonnie Honig, who, like Berkowitz, is a political theorist.

February 1997

The Department of Government votes to recommend promotion and tenure for both Professors Berkowitz and Honig.

April 1997

On April 17, in accordance with Harvard's tenure review procedures, President Rudenstine presides over ad hoc committee hearings to consider the cases of Professors Berkowitz and Honig. According to Harvard's tenure review procedures in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (p. 13), the purpose of the ad hoc committee is to advise the president on the importance of the candidate's field to the long-term development of the department and the candidate's merits to fill the position.
Also on April 17, the Harvard Gazette publishes, "Finding a Way through the Moral Haze (pp. 3-4), which profiles the Program in Ethics and the Professions on the occasion of its10th anniversary celebration. The article features Associate Provost of the University, Professor of Government, and Director of the Program in Ethics and the Professions Dennis F. Thompson.
On April 20, Professor Shepsle, chair of the Department of Government, calls Professors Berkowitz and Honig to inform them that President Rudenstine rejected the Department of Government's recommendations and has denied their tenure.
Shortly after the President's decision, Berkowitz hears allegations that members of the ad hoc committee that advised President Rudenstine on his tenure were biased and otherwise inappropriate.
On April 26, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Ethics and the Professions Celebrates 10th Anniversary (p. 5).

May 1997

On May 9, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Tenure Denial Raises Concerns," which discusses allegations of procedural improprieties connected to President Rudenstine's decision to deny tenure to Professor Berkowitz and his decision to deny tenure to Professor Honig.
On May 12, the Harvard Crimson publishes a letter from 15 senior female professors sent to President Rudenstine on April 30, 1997 (pp. 1, 3). The letter declares that his denial of tenure to Professor Honig was "incomprehensible given [his] publicly stated commitment to equality for women." Articles about Honig also appear in the New York Times and the Boston Globe.
On May 14, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Rudenstine will not alter Honig Tenure Decision," p. 1). In response to allegations of procedural improprieties in the Honig case, President Rudenstine states: "I would just like to make clear that I know absolutely of nothing related to the ad hoc process that was in any way irregular or inappropriate, in this case or in any of the other cases"

September 1997

On September 1, Professor Berkowitz publishes "The Politic Moralist" in The New Republic (pp. 36-40). In the essay he discusses the ineliminability of hypocrisy from, and the need for integrity in, the politics of a liberal democracy.
In late September, Professor Berkowitz is introduced to Professor Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School by Martin Peretz, owner of The New Republic, and Professor Lawrence Lessig, a former law school classmate of Berkowitz's and a colleague of Nesson's at Harvard Law School.

December 1997

On December 5, attorney Matthew Feinberg, on behalf of Professor Berkowitz, sends a letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments. The Joint Committee on Appointments is composed of members drawn from the Harvard Corporation and Board of Overseers. Feinberg's letter identifies irregularities in the composition of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee, and asks that President Rudenstine's decision be set aside and a fair process established for the reconsideration of Berkowitz's case.
On December 29, 1997, Anne Taylor, vice president and general counself of Harvard University, sends a letter of reply to Matthew Feinberg. Notwithstanding that she represents the president whose decision in the Berkowitz case Mr. Feinberg's letter had called into question, Ms. Taylor rejects all allegations of procedural improprieties: "I have made inquiry with respect to the composition and conduct of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee. I can find no evidence to support your allegation that Professor Berkowitz was denied due process in any aspect of the process; hence, I have no basis for recommending to the Joint Appointments Committee that the matter be reconsidered." Taylor thus indicates that had her investigation uncovered flaws in the process, the Joint Committee on Appointments would have been an available and appropriate forum for the the review of President Rudenstine's decision to deny Professor Berkowitz's tenure.

Back to Top

January 1998

On January 1, Professor Nesson calls Professor Berkowitz. In response to General Counsel Anne Taylor's summary dismissal of Professor Berkowitz's appeal, Professor Nesson proposes to teach "The Case of Peter Berkowitz" in his winter term evidence class at Harvard Law School. In addition, Nesson, chair of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, proposes to post pertinent materials on the Internet.
On January 3, Profesor Berkowitz agrees to work with Professor Nesson and his winter term evidence class.
On January 12, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Berkowitz v. Harvard" (p. 13).
On January 14, in reply to the class's request to speak with her, General Counsel Anne Taylor sends an e-mail to Professor Nesson's winter evidence class declining the invitation.
On January 26, attorney Matthew Feinberg writes to Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor. The purpose of the letter is to help prepare for a meeting on January 30 in which Mr. Feinberg plans to discuss the character and quality of the "inquiry" that Ms. Taylor, according to her December 29th letter, had undertaken. In addition, Mr Feinberg expresses his concerns about the tenure review process at Harvard and her review of the process in the Berkowitz case.
On January 30, Mr. Feinberg and Ms. Taylor meet. Ms. Taylor assures Mr. Feinberg that her investigation was thorough and objective, but refuses to share with Mr. Feinberg any information about the scope or content of her fact-finding.

February 1998

Terry Lenzner, a private investigator and founder of Investigative Group International, discovers the names of the members of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee.
Professors Nesson and Berkowitz decide to disclose the identities of the ad hoc committee members on the Internet.

March 1998

On March 4, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Berkowitz to Stay Additional Year" (pp. 1, 3) The article eports Harvard's one-year extension of Professor Berkowitz's contract and announces the identities of the members of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee.
On March 4, Professor Nesson publishes an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson, "Show us the Evidence" (p. 9), urging the reform of Harvard's tenure process.
On March 9, the Harvard Crimson publishes an editorial, "The Tenure Odyssey" (p. 8).
On March 27, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson (wife of Associate Provost of the University, Director of the Program in Ethics and the Professions, and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson) isssues a memo clarifying the tenure review process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Her memo states that the "Dean and the Academic Deans" have responsibility for insuring that, at the departmental level, procedures have been adhered to in tenure deliberations. She also explains that ad hoc committees are assembled by Faculty Associate Dean's, but these Deans, Thompson adds, "are not, of course, involved in cases from their own departments."

April 1998

Professor Nesson posts a response to the Carol Thompson memo, detailing questions relating to the Berkowitz tenure process that the memo raised.   

May 1998

Attorney Matthew Feinberg and Professors Nesson and Berkowitz draft a second letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments.
On May 7, Professor Nesson e-mails a copy of the draft letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments to Associate Provost of the University and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson.
On May 9, Professor Nesson e-mails a follow-up note to Professor Thompson and to General Counsel Anne Taylor. Nesson asks each to correct factual errors and unfairness in tone in the draft letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments that he has sent them. Neither Thompson nor Taylor responds.
On May 27, Professor Nesson receives a letter of May 22 from Secretary of the University and Member of the Corporation Michael Roberts, who is also Assistant to the President. Mr. Roberts informs Professor Nesson that in regard to the Berkowitz appeal, the Joint Committee is "not an available or appropriate forum" and suggests that concerning his grievances Professor Berkowitz "inquire of the Dean whether these concerns are covered by FAS procedures."
On May 28, Professor Nesson replies by e-mail to Secretary of the University Roberts. Nesson rejects Robert's suggestion that Berkowtiz consult with the Dean Jeremy Knowles on the grounds that the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences sits at the pleasure of the president and therefore cannot impartially review the president's actions. Nesson also reiterates his intention to continue to address the Berkowitz appeal to the Joint Committee on Appointments.
On May 28, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson and attorney Feinberg send a second letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments.

June 1998

On June 2, the Boston Globe publishes "Tenure System Comes Under Fire" (pp. A-1, A-14, A-15).
On June 4, the Harvard Crimson commencement issue publishes "Tenure Troubles" (pp. B-4, B-14).
Provost of the University Harvey Fineberg informally advises Professor Nesson that Professor Berkowitz should pursue the grievance procedure administered by Dean Knowles.

August 1998

In early August, General Counsel Anne Taylor also advises Professor Nesson to encourage Professor Berkowitz to write to Dean Knowles. After consulting, Professors Nesson and Berkowitz and attorney Feinberg agree that Berkowitz should write to the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Jeremy Knowles, and ask him to investigate their allegations of procedural improprieties.
On August 27, Profesor Berkowitz sends a letter to Dean Knowles. Professor Berkowitz asks for the Dean's help in setting aside President Rudenstine's decision.

September 1998

Associate Provost of the University and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson is named chair of the University Committee on Physical Planning. "The committee advises the President, Provost and other officers responsible for long range physical planning for the University. The committee focuses on broad issues that may affect the university as a whole."
On September 17, attorney Matthew Feinberg sends a follow-up letter to Dean Knowles. Feinberg expresses his concerns as Berkowitz's attorney, "about the structure of Harvard's appeals process and the manner in which Harvard has handled Professor Berkowitz's appeal of President Rudenstine's decision." Dean Knowles never replies to this letter.
Also on September 17, on behalf of Dean Knowles, John B. Fox, secretary of the Faculty, writes to Professor Berkowitz. Fox asks Berkowitz whether his letter of August 27 to the Dean was "intended to be a formal complaint pursuant to" the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," a copy of which Fox enclosed in his letter to Berkowitz.
Also on September 17, upon learning from Lingua Franca on the eve of publication of its article on the Berkowitz case that it was not child psychologist Jerome Bruner but child psychologist Jerome Kagan who had served on the Berkowitz ad hoc committee, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson and attorney Feinberg send a letter to Professor Bruner apologizing for their mistake. They also expressed regret that the Harvard administration, which had known of their mistaken belief for more than seven months had chosen not to correct their error. Further, they regretted that Associate Provosot of the University and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson and Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor, to whom Nesson had written in May asking for corrections of factual errors in a draft of a letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments, had chosen not to respond.

October 1998

Lingua Franca publishes a cover story, "Behind the Crimson Curtain" (October 1998, pp. 30-39), an account of the Berkowitz tenure review and appeal.
On October 14, Professor Berkowitz replies to Secretary of the Faculty John Fox's letter of September 17. Berkowitz explains that his August 27 letter was not intended to be a formal complaint pursuant to the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances." Berkowitz also expresses doubts concerning the authority of the Dean to review a decision of the President, but welcomes the opportunity to have his grievances heard. He states that he will follow the process as outlined in the Guidelines, which requires him to begin by taking the matter to the chair of the department, and, if they are unable to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution, to then consult with Associate Dean for Academic Afairs Carol J. Thompson.
On October 14, Professors Nesson and Berkowitz meet with Professor Roderick MacFarquhar, chair of the Department of Government. Professor MacFarquhar explains that he lacks authority to redress wrongs committed at higher levels of the university hierarchy.
On October 16, in accordance with Profesor MacFarquhar's request, Professors Nesson and Berkowitz summarize in a letter their reasons for believing that wrongs in the Berkowitz tenure review were committed at the departmental level.
On October 21, Professor MacFarquhar responds to the October 16 letter from Professors Berkowitz and Nesson. Professor MacFarquhar reiterates that there is nothing he can do.

November 1998

On November 3, Professor Nesson sends a memo by e-mail to the members of the Department of Government concerning "the most recent events in the Tenure Review of Peter Berkowitz." In the memo, Professor Nesson announces that as a result of the failure to achieve a resolution of his grievances in consultation with Professor MacFarquhar, Professor Berkowitz will now, in accordance with the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," consult with the associate dean for academic affairs, who is Carol J. Thompson.
On November 4, Professor Berkowitz finds under the door of his office a letter dated November 3 from John Fox, Secretary of of the Faculty. Noting Berkowitz's intention, in accordance with clause 2 of Harvard's "Guidleines for the Resoultion of Faculty Grievance," to consult with Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson, Fox suggests to Berkowitz, without offering any reason, that he instead "consider raising this matter with Professor Marjorie Garber or Dean Elizabeth Doherty, both designated affirmative action officers in FAS."
On November 5, the Harvard Crimson publishes "More Than a Year Later, Berkowitz Continues to Appeal Tenure Denial" (pp. A-5, A-7). The article discusses the applicablity of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances" to Professor Berkowitz's appeal and Berkowitz's and Nesson's unusual proposal, first advanced in attorney Feinberg's September 17 letter to Dean Knowles, that Harvard's University Professors, as a collective body, be asked to review Berkowiitz's case.
On November 9, in accordance with clause 2 of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," Berkowitz sends a letter laying out his gievances, along with an Addendum from Professor Nesson, to Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson. Copies of the letter are also sent to Dean Knowles and John Fox, Secretary of the Faculty.
On November 17, Professor Berkowitz receives a letter from Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson. Dean Thompson writes: "I want to state unequivocally that I have not had, and will not have, any role in your tenure review."
On November 19, Dean Knowles replies to Professor Berkowitz's letter of November 9 to Dean Thompson. In his letter, Dean Knowles tries to clarify certain aspects of the tenure review system at Harvard that, he claims, Professor Berkowitz misunderstands.
On November 24, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson write by e-mail to Dean Knowles. They express their concern "that on or before November 6th some official connected to the Dean's Office may have circulated a confidential e-mail to the senior members of the Government Department concerning the question of which Dean or Deans in your Office Professor Berkowitz would be consulting as part of his appeal." Professors Berkowitz and Nesson ask Dean Knowles to "look into this matter promptly, for if true it would appear to be a violation by the Office of the Dean of the very [guarantee of confidentiality in the] 'Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances' to which the Dean's Office recently directed Professor Berkowitz." Dean Knowles does not reply to this e-mail.
On November 25, Professor Berkowitz replies to Dean Knowles's letter of November 19. Professor Berkowitz explains that none of the misunderstandings about tenure review that Dean Knowles sought to correct appeared in Professor Berkowitz's letter to Dean Thompson. Profesor Berkowitz then goes on to elaborate his grievances.
On November 27, Professor Nesson writes by e-mail to Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol Thompson. Professor Nesson explains that though her letter, received by Profesor Berkowitz on November 17, was marked "Personal and Confidential," he and Professor Berkowitz wish to post it on their web page, because the issues Dean Thompson addresses pertain directly to Professor Berkowitz's case and because the confidentialitity referred to in the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," Profesor Nesson points out, "is for the benefit of the grievant." However, Professor Nesson invites Dean Thompson to explain her objections, if any, to having her letter posted. Dean Thompson does not reply to this e-mail.

December 1998

On December 2, Dean Knowles replies to Berkowitz's letter of November 25. Ignoring all the substantive issues Professor Berkowitz raised in his November 25 letter, Dean Knowles simply states that he will expect Professor Berkowitz's formal grievance.
Having exhausted all other avenues of appeal provided by the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," Professor Berkowitz prepares, in accordance with clause 3 of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," to file a formal grievance with Dean Knowles and the Docket Committee.
On December 14, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Berkowitz Prepares to File Formal Grievance over Tenure Denial" (pp. A-1, A-9).

Back to Top

January 1999

On January 6, Professor Berkowitz, in accordance with section 3 of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," files a 38 page formal grievance addressed to Dean Knowles and the elected members of the Docket Committee. The formal grievance is accompanied by more than 150 pages of supporting documents, and by a letter from Professor Nesson, addressed to Dean Knowles, and through Dean Knowles to the broader Harvard community.
On January 7, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox writes to inform Professor Berkowitz that his formal grievance has been received in Dean Knowles's office and will be, in accordance with the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances, distributed to the elected members of the Docket Committee. The Docket Committee is chaired by Dean Knowles. Its elected members are Professor David Cutler, Department of Economics; Professor Cynthia Friend, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology; and Professor Warren Goldfarb, Department of Philosophy.
On January 13, the Harvard Crimson publishes lengthy letters by both Professor Berkowitz and Professor Nesson (p. 10 ). Both letters criticize and correct statements made by Harvard officials in "Berkowitz Prepares to File Formal Grievance over Tenure Denial" (December 14, 1998, pp. A-1, A-9).
On January 19, in a letter to Dean Knowles and each of the elected members of the Docket Committee, Professor Berkowitz and Nesson point out that Professor Berkowitz's appeal is comlex, sensitive, and unprecedented. They therefore request the opportunity to come before the Committee, explain the case, and answer any questions the committee may have.
On January 19, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson write to the Joint Committee on Appointments, informing the members of the state of the Berkowitz appeal. Members of the Joint Committee on Appointments are also sent Professor Berkowitz's 38 page formal grievance, Professor Nesson's cover letter, the bound volume of supporting documents, and the letters to the Crimson that Professors Berkowitz and Nesson had published on January 13.
On January 27, Professor Berkowitz receives a letter from Secretary of the Faculty John Fox. Mr. Fox confirms the reception by the members of the Docket Committee of the request by Profesors Berkowitz and Nesson to address the Committee directly. Mr. Fox does not comment on the substance of the request but does ask Professor Berkowitz to address the Docket Committee only through the Office of the Dean.

February 1999

Princeton University Press publishes Professor Berkowitz's book, Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism.
On February 8, the Harvard Crimson staff publishes a masthead editorial, "The Fight Continues: Standing behind Berkowitz's crusade against a flawed system" (p. A-10).
On February 11, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Berkowitz Close to Suing Harvard" (pp. A-1, A-5, A-9). The article reveals that Professor Berkowitz is considering filing a law suit in Middlesex County Superior Court alleging that Harvard breached its contractual obligations to by failing to comply with its own procedures in reviewing him for tenure.
On February 19, Marc Goodheart, Secretary of the University, responds to the letter of January 19 from Professors Berkowitz and Nesson to the Joint Committee on Appointments. Mr. Goodheart reports that the Joint Committee will not address the substance of Professor Berkowitz's grievance because it is not "an appropriate or available forum."

March 1999

Harvard Magazine publishes "Berkowitz Appeals Tenure Denial" (March-April, 1999, p. 68).
On March 17, attorney Matthew Feinberg meets with Harvard General Counself Anne Taylor. Feinberg expresses his concern over the length of time the Docket Committee has taken to consider whether Professor Berkowitz's grievance is "clearly without merit." He also explains that out of concern that Professor Berkowitz's grievance will not be reviewed fairly, he has begun to prepare a lawsuit based on a breach of contract claim. And Feinberg and Taylor discuss the conditions under which Profesor Berkowitz might agree to settle his dispute with Harvard. At the end of the meeting Ms. Taylor says that she will send Mr. Feinberg a letter summarzing their discussion.
On March 19, the Harvard Crimson publishes, "University, Berkowitz discuss Settlement." The article reveals that Professor Berkowitz has accepted an offer to join the faculty at George Mason University School of Law
On March 22, Professor Nesson sends an e-mail to the elected members of the Docket Committee and a copy to Dean Knowles, who chairs the Docket Committee. Professor Nesson requests the opportunity to come before Committee, to explain Professor Berkowitz's grievances, and to respond in person to their questions and concerns.

April 1999

On April 5, having received no response to his March 22 e-mail, Professor Nesson sends the same e-mail a second time. He also has copies of the e-mail hand delivered to the elected members of the Docket Committee and to Dean Knowles.
On April 8, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox, on behalf of the elected members of the Docket Committee, replies by e-mail to Professor Nesson's e-mails. Mr. Fox states that Professor Berkowitz's grievance is currently under consideration by the Docket Committee and that Professor Berkowitz will hear from the Committee in "due course." In his e-mail, Mr. Fox makes no mention of Professor Nesson's request to address the Docket Committee in person.
On April 9, after waiting more than three weeks for General Counsel Anne Taylor to provide the letter summarizing their discussion that she had promised at the conclusion of their March 17 meeting, attorney Matthew Feinberg writes to Ms. Taylor to summarize the issues they discussed and the opinions they exchanged.
On April 14, almost three months after Professor Berkowitz wrote to Dean Knowles and the elected members of the Docket Committee and voluntered to come before them, explain his case and answer any questions they might have, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox sends Professor Berkowitz an e-mail iinforming him that the elected members of the Docket Committee "hope to meet with you sometime within the next month or so."
On April 15, General Counsel Anne Taylor replies by fax and letter to attorney Matthew Feinberg's letter of April 9.
On Sunday, April 18, at 2 PM, Professor Berkowitz writes by e-mail to Mr. Fox requesting that "Professor Nesson be permitted to accompany and advise me when I meet with the elected members of the Docket Committee."
On Sunday, April 18, at 8:45 PM, Mr. Fox replies by e-mail to Professor Berkowitz. Mr. Fox reports that "it will not be possible for you to be accompanied by Professor Nesson. The Elected Members will be adhering to the procedures set out for hearing such grievances. You may, therefore, bring a voting members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences with you, but not someone from another Faculty."
On April 20, Professor Berkowitz writes by e-mail to Mr. Fox. Professor Berkowitz states that he "can find no prohibition in section 3 of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances"-- which deals with the Docket Committee and the "preliminary screening" of grievances that is its responsibility to perform--that would prohibit Professor Nesson from accompanying me."
On April 20, Mr. Fox replies by e-mail to Professor Berkowitz. Mr. Fox reaffirms that when Professor Berkowitz appears before the elected members of the Docket Committee, he may only be accompanied and advised by a voting member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Mr. Fox states that the elected members of the Docket Committee have decided "to follow the procedures set out in the Guidelines (particularly paragraphs 4c & 4d) for an ad hoc grievance panel."
On April 21, Professor Berkowitz replies by e-mail to Mr. Fox. Professor Berkowitz observes that "in applying a restriction to the Docket Committee level of deliberations that the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances" establish for the ad hoc grievance panel level of deliberations, the Docket Committee is not adhering to procedure but creating it. And the elected members of the Docket Committee have refrained from providing any reason or explanation for their decision." Professor Berkowitz nevertheless affirms his desire to come before the elected members of the Docket Committee in order to help them complete their "preliminary screening" of his grievance.
On April 23, more than three months after Professor Berkowitz first requrested, at the end of the fall term 1998, the opportunity to come before the elected members of the Docket Committee, Mr. Fox issues a formal invitatation for Professor Berkowitz to meet with the committee on May 5 (two days before the end of spring term 1999 classes). Professor Berkowitz accepts
On April 27, Professor Berkowitz requests by e-mail that Mr. Fox indicate where a document pertaining to Harvard procedures can be found. Mr. Fox ccs his reply to Professor Berkowitz not only to the elected members of the Docket Committee, but also to Jeff Swopes, an attorney at the Boston law firm of Palmer Dodge. Professor Nesson calls Jeff Swopes and learns that Swopes has been retained to represent the elected members of the Docket Committee.
In an e-mail of April 30, Professor Nesson outlines for Palmer Dodge attorney Jeff Swopes elements of the recent procedural history of the Berkowitz appeal, and sketches some of the conflicts of interest that call into question the independence and impartiality of Swopes's clients, the elected members of the Docket Committee.

May 1999

On Wednesday, May 5, Professor Berkowitz, accompanied by University Professor and Professor of Government Stanley Hoffmann, meets with the elected members of the Docket Committee. Professor Berkowitz makes a brief opening statement in which he provides a simple account of his grievances and asserts that the manner in which the elected members of the Docket Committee have handled his appeal has added to his grievances. Although they are not authorized to serve as a deliberative or judicial body, the elected members of the Docket Committee closely question Professor Berkowitz for nearly an hour and a half.
On May 7, the Harvard Crimson publishes "Berkowitz meets Docket Panel to Review Claim."
On Monday, May 10, Professor Berkowitz sends an e-mail to the Elected Members of the Docket Committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences restating his grievance, requesting a decision by Friday, May 14, and suggesting a process by which the merits of his grievance might be satisfactorily resolved.
On May 10, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox provides a patially edited transcript of the May 5 hearing conducted by the Docket Committee with Professor Berkowitz.
On May 10, the Harvard Salient publishes, "The Unmaking of Peter Berkowitz."
The Weekly Standard publishes "Liberalism's Virtues?" (May 24, 1999, pp. 34-36), a review of Professor Berkowitz's book, Virtue and the Making of Modern Liberalism. The review connects flaws in Harvard's tenure review system to Berkowitz's analysis of liberalism.
On May 26, the Harvard Crimson publishes, "Fair Harvard," an op-ed by Professor Berkowitz (p. 8). Berkowitz explains that his appeal revolves around the demand for fair process and proposes the establishment at Harvard of a new center devoted to the study of university self-governance and the ethics of academic life.
On May 26, Professor Berkowitz faxes and sends by express mail a letter to President Neil L. Rudenstine. Berkowitz requests that the president ensure that the elected members of the Docket Committee reach a decision by Saturday, May 29, the last day of the spring term.
On May 28, the Harvard Crimson publishes, "Set to Depart, Berkowitz Awaits Verdict."
On May 28, Professor Berkowitz receives a letter of May 27 by fax from Beverly Blake Sullivan, Executive Assistant to the President, writing on behalf of President Rudenstine. Ms. Blake informs Professor Berkowitz that President Rudenstine has not been involved in the "deliberations of the Docket Committee" but has forwarded Professor Berkowitz's May 26 letter to Secretary of the Faculty John Fox, "so he can bring it to the attention of the Docket Committee."
In a 9 page letter of May 28, 1999, marked "Personal and Confidential," Professor Cynthia Friend, writing also on behalf of Professors David Cutler and Warren Goldfarb, presents the judgment of the elected members of the Docket Committee, Professor Friend informs Professor Berkowitz that the Docket Committee has found his grievance to be in every respect "clearly without merit."

June 1999

First thing on Tuesday morning, June 1, immediately following the long Memorial Day Weekend, notwithstanding that the letter to Professor Berkowitz from Professor Friend was marked by the Office of the Dean "Personal and Confidential," Dean Knowles writes by e-mail to Professor Roderick MacFarquhar, chair of the Department of Government, inviting him to share the results of the Docket Committee's deliberations with faculty in the department, which Professor MacFarquhar promptly does.
Later on Tuesday morning, Professor Berkowitz writes by e-mail to Secretary of the Faculty John Fox. Professor Berkowitz asks Mr. Fox to explain what was meant by the desigation by the Office of the Dean of Professor Friend's letter as "Personal and Confidential."
Later still on Tuesday morning, Secretary Fox replies to Professor Berkowitz, explaining the significance of the designation by the Office of the Dean of a letter as "Personal and Confidential": "I marked the email and letter confidential and/or personal in order to protect you from someone else inadvertently opening or reading something which was addressed to you."
On June 6, Professor Berkowitz writes to Secretary of the Faculty Fox to inquire about both the rules governing the Docket Committee's responsibilities and how to appeal a decision of the Docket Committee.
On June 7, Professor Berkowitz sends a letter by e-mail and by post, addresed to Dean Knowles and Professors Friend, Cutler, and Goldfarb, in reply to Professor Friend's May 28 letter. Professor Berkowitz also e-mails the letter to Professor MacFarquhar, who, in accordance with Professor Berkowitz's request, forwards the letter by e-mail to the government department faculty. In the letter, Professor Berkowitz disputes the facts as Professor Friend reports them, rejects Professor Friend's reasoning, and calls into question her interpretation of Harvard rules, customs and traditions, and precedents related to tenure review and appeal. Professor Berkowitz also reminds that he and Professor Nesson have stated in numerous letters that they have always denied the authority of the Docket Committee to render a final judgment in an appeal that concerns a presidential level decision and allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Dean and members of his office..
On June 7, the Harvard Crimson publishes, "Berkowitz's Claim Found 'Clearly Without Merit,'" which reports the findings of the Docket Committee and discusses Berkowitz's reply. In addition, the Crimson publishes a news analysis, "Berkowitz's Appeal Process Spanned 1998-99 Academic Year."
On June 8, the Harvard Crimson publishes a staff editorial, "Making Tenure Work."
On June 8, Professor Nesson announces in an open letter to the Harvard community his and Professor Berkowitz's intention to turn to the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Board of Overseers, and the Corporation to have Professor Berkowitz's grievances fairly heard.
On June 9, Professor Berkowitz publishes a letter to the editor in the Harvard Crimson. The letter corrects the untrue allegation, made in "Berkowitz's Appeal Process Spanned 1998-99 Academic Year" (June 7, 1999), that Professors Berkowitz and Nesson had systematically posted on the web correspondence from Harvard marked "Personal and Confidential."
On June 10, Professor Nesson sends by e-mail his open letter to the Harvard community to President Neil Rudenstine, Secretary of the University Marc Goodheart, Provost Harvey Fineberg, Associate Provost Dennis Thompson, Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor, Dean Jeremy Knowles, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol Thompson, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox, the elected members of the Docket Committee, and the faculty in the Department of Government.
On June 11, Professor Berkowitz receives a reply from Secretary of the Faculty John Fox concerning Professor Berkowitz's June 6 letter. Secretary Fox informs Professor Berkowitz that "there is no appeal from the finding of the Elected Members." However, Secretary Fox cites no rule.
On June 15, Prrofessor Berkowitz moves to Washington, DC, and joins the faculty of the George Mason University Law School.
On June 24, Secretary of the University Marc Goodheart writes to Professor Nesson in response to Professor Nesson's June 10 e-mail. Mr. Goodheart states that, as requested, he "will forward copies of your message, as well as the enclosed "open letter," to both the members of the Corporation and the members of the Board of Overseers' Executive Committee (which has responsibility for the Board's agenda)."

July 1999

On July 20, Professor Nesson delivers six copies of a letter that he and Professor Berkowitz prepared for the Joint Committee on Appointments to the office of Marc Goodheart, Secretary of the University. In a brief cover letter, Professor Nesson requests that Secretary Goodheart distribute the copies of the letter to the Joint Committee to the members at their July 23 meeting on campus. In the letter to the Joint Committee, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson explain that the conduct and the conlusions of the Docket Committee--as summarized in Professor Cynthia Friend's May 28 letter, amd as criticized in Professor Berkowitz's June 7 letter and Professor Nesson's June 8 letter--are rife with flaws. They emphasize the inherent unfairness of the FAS grieance procedure--administered by Dean Jeremy Knowles, one of those alleged by Profesor Berkowitz's grievance to be entangled in conflicts of interest in his tenure review and appeal--when applied to Professor Berkowitz's case. Accordingly, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson "once again call on the Joint Committee on Appointments to review the process by which President Rudenstine reached his decision to deny Professor Berkowitz's tenure, and, because of the irregularity and unfairness that marked the original review and which have now tainted the appeal process, to establish a fair procedure for the reconsideration of Professor Berkowitz's tenure."
On July 23, the Joint Committee on Appointments meets at Harvard.

September 1999

On September 2, in a letter (sent by mail and by e-mail) to Dean Knowles and the members of the Faculty Council, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson request that the Faculty Council recommend to the full faculty that an ad hoc grievance panel be appointed to undertake a "full and fair consideration" of Professor Berkowitz's grievances.
On September 21, attorney Matthew Feinberg writes to Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor. Feinberg requests Taylor's help in securing a timely reply for Professors Berkowitz and Nesson to their July 20 letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments.
On September 22, the Faculty Council holds its first regularly scheduled meeting of the fall semester. All members of the faculty council have previously been sent by e-mail and regular mail a copy of Professors Berkowitz's and Nesson's letter of September 2, requesting that the Faculty Council recommend to the full faculty that an ad hoc grievance panel be appointed to undertake a "full and fair consideration" of Professor Berkowitz's grievances. In a dramatic and unprecedented departure from ordinary procedures, an hour is set aside for discussion in camera of Professors Berkowitz's and Nesson's letter. All visitors are officially excluded and Professor Berkowitz is not represented. Nevertheless, Palmer Dodge attorney Jeffrey Swopes, who advised the Docket Committee in connection to Professor Berkowitz's grievance, joins the discussion.
Also on September 22, Professors Berkowitz and Nesson receive a September 14 letter from Secretary of the University Marc Goodheart. Mr. Goodheart informs Professors Berkowitz and Nesson that the Joint Committee on Appointments has once again decided not to review Professor Berkowitz's grievances.
On September 27, attorney Matthew Feinberg receives a letter of September 22, 1999, from Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor. In response to Mr. Feinberg's September 21 letter, Ms. Taylor writes, "I am sorry if my letter of December 1997 created a misunderstanding about the availability of the Joint Committee on Appointments as a forum for Professor Berkowitz's claims. In the event that it did, I would have thought the matter had been long since clarified by the many subsequent communications on the topic." In fact, nowhere in "the many subsequent communications on the topic" did Anne Taylor or any Harvard official address the discrepancy between Ms. Taylor's original, official affirmation of the Joint Committee's availability and appropriateness for Professor Berkowitz's grievances (see Ms. Taylor's letter of December 29, 1997 to attorney Matthew Feinberg) and Harvard's later denials of its availability and appropriateness. Nor did "the many subsequent communications on the topic" address Professors Berkowitz's and Nesson's claims that the grievance prodecure of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences administered by Dean Jeremy Knowles was an inappropriate forurm for Professor Berkowitz's grievances because of bias and conflict of interest on the part of Dean Knowles.

October 1999

On October 1, Secretary of the Faculty John Fox writes on behalf of the Faculty Council to Professors Berkowitz and Nesson. Responding to their letter of September 2, 1999, Secretary Fox flatly denies that in reviewing Professor Berkowitz's grievance last spring the elected members of the Docket Committee exceeded their formal mandate or violated norms of fundamental fairness. Hence, Secretary Fox explains, the Faculty Council has declined to recommend to the full faculty that it apppoint an ad hoc grievance panel to review Professor Berkowitz's grievances.

Back to Top