Document 44

25 November 1998

Jeremy R. Knowles
Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
5 University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dean Knowles:

Thank you for your letter of November 19th written in response to my letter of November 9th to Dean Carol J. Thompson (a copy of which I sent to you). In my letter you find "several statements that indicate some misunderstanding of the tenure review process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences." Yet the "misunderstandings" your letter is meant to dispel do not appear in mine. And in providing an "accurate understanding" of the FAS tenure process you raise a variety of troubling issues about the administration of the process in my case.

First, you indicate that I believe that the composition of the ad hoc committee and the choice of witnesses invited from the department to testify at the ad hoc hearing are "the responsibility of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs." Nowhere in my letter do I say or imply that the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs composes the ad hoc committee or invites witnesses from the department. My complaint is that several members of the ad hoc committee in my case showed bias or conflict of interest or lack of relevant expertise and that it was wrong of the Office of the Dean, which has final responsibility, to assemble and approve such a committee for the purpose of advising President Rudenstine on my tenure.

Second, you indicate that I believe that the faculty Associate Dean responsible for assembling ad hoc committees is "bound" by the recommendations of the proposed candidate's department. Nowhere in my letter do I say or imply this. Moreover, in our letter of May 26th to the Joint Committee on Appointments (<http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/jca526.html>)--a copy of which was sent to you twice, with my letter to you of August 27th and with the copy you received of my letter to Dean Thompson of November 9th--Professor Charles Nesson, attorney Matthew Feinberg, and I explicitly note that it is the responsibility of the faculty Associate Dean (and not the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs) to assemble ad hoc committees. As in my letter to Dean Thompson, we make no suggestion in our letter to the Joint Committee that the faculty Associate Dean, in forming the ad hoc committee, is "bound" by the recommendations of the Department. However, in our as yet unanswered letter to the Joint Committee on Appointments we ask several questions about the reasons the faculty Associate Dean had in my case for choosing the members he did and passing by many appropriate scholars (pp. 9-12). Our complaint then as now is that in my case, having rejected the Department's recommendations, the Dean's Office, in the person of the faculty Associate Dean, assembled a committee whose members were not in a position to impartially and knowledgeably advise President Rudenstine on the two issues FAS procedures call on them to address: "1) the importance of the field to the long-term development of the department; and 2) the quality of the proposed nominee" (http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/tenrevguidelines.html>, Harvard Guidelines for Tenure Review, 1994 Revisions, p. 13).

Third, in your letter of November 19th you explain that

it is established practice in the FAS that tenured colleagues who serve in part-time administrative capacities (for example, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Dean for Affirmative Action, or the Associate Provost) are expected fully to participate in tenure deliberations in their home departments.

But it is misleading for several reasons for you to lump the Associate Provost with the Dean of the Graduate School and the Dean for Affirmative Action. First, you refer to "established practice in the FAS," but the position of Associate Provost was only created in 1996, the year my tenure review began. Second, the administrative responsibilities of the two Deans you mention are confined to FAS. In contrast, the Associate Provost is Associate Provost of the University, a member of the Central Administration, and has considerably more power and influence than either of the Deans. For example, Associate Provost of the University and Professor of Government Dennis Thompson is the only faculty member in FAS who sits on the Central Administration Strategic Team (CAST), the important committee whose purpose is "to provide a forum for senior administrators in the central administration to work together to develop a plan and three-year budget for the core central administration. Membership consists of the Provost, Vice Presidents, and other senior officers in the central administration" (<http://www.provost.harvard.edu/ca_reports/ca_plan/castmembers.html>). Third, unlike the FAS Deans you mention, the specific responsibility of the Associate Provost of the University is to advise the President on "substantial academic issues" (Harvard University Gazette, September 19, 1996). The condition of the Moral Reasoning Division of the Core Curriculum, in which I have taught and would have been expected to teach as a tenured member of the Government Department, is but one of the "substantial academic issues" that both touches upon the question of my tenure and concerns the Associate Provost, in his official capacity as a member of the President's staff. Participation by the Associate Provost in departmental deliberations about tenure is inherently unfair because it makes a close advisor to the President, who is final judge in tenure decisions, a party to the case.

Fourth, you write to me: "Dean Thompson did not participate in your tenure review." This is good to know. But you should appreciate the reasons for any misunderstanding over this issue. Harvard's own written tenure review guidelines state that

Chairs should submit a draft of the blind letter to Carol Thompson or Laura Gordon Fisher for review on the Dean's behalf. (<http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/tenrevguidelines.html>, Harvard Guidelines for Tenure Review, 1996 revision, p. 12)

In our letter of May 26th to the Joint Committee on Appointments, we asked which academic Deans were involved in my tenure review process before the Department voted to recommend tenure and so would have had responsibility for reviewing the department's draft of the so-called "blind letter" (p. 9). As you know, we have received no answer to our question. Indeed, no Harvard official has so much as acknowledged the receipt of our May 26th letter: not the members of the Joint Committee on Appointments to whom it was originally sent; not Vice President and General Counsel Anne Taylor who in a letter of December 29, 1997 (<http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/mf1229at.html>) responded to our first letter, of December 5th, to the Joint Committee on Appointments (<http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/jca125mf.html>); nor you to whom we have twice sent a copy of our May 26th letter.

Moreover, when we consulted Harvard University's webpage we learned that Carol Thompson's duties, as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, concern both faculty appointment and "departmental and academic policies" (<http://www.fas.harvard.edu/administration/faculty-wide.html>). The Harvard webpage also suggests that the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs belongs to the Dean's "‘cabinet.'" And we read in the Boston Globe that, "The Harvard faculty of the future takes shape every Wednesday morning in a conference room in University Hall. . . [where] Knowles and his staff take stock of their courtships of the world's best minds" ("Tenure System Comes under Fire," June 2, 1998, p. A14). Is it wrong to suppose that Dean Thompson, as a member of your staff, took part in these meetings? Or to assume that during the academic year 1996-1997 Dean Thompson was involved in other tenure review cases in FAS concurrent with mine? Or to think that a tenure decision is always not only about the merits of a particular candidate but also always concerns the direction of the department, the needs of FAS, and the academic mission of the University as a whole? If all this is so, is it a mistake to reason that in the routine discharge of the duties of her office--participation in tenure reviews of competitors for scarce positions on the senior faculty, formation of academic policy, and recruitment of faculty--Dean Thompson, even if she recused herself in my case, could have played a perhaps indirect but significant and potentially decisive role in the outcome of my tenure review?

Fifth, in your letter you quote as authority "the document describing the FAS tenure process." However, you do not mention the author of the document you quote or the date of the document's release. In fact, the document you quote and to whose authority you appeal is a memo dated March 27, 1998 issued by Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson. The purpose of Dean Thompson's memo is to provide an account of "The Tenure Appointment Process in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences" (<http://cyber.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/327cjtmemo.html>). My advisor, Professor Nesson, and I believe that drafting and issuing a restatement of the rules governing a process while a decision based on that process is under appeal on the grounds that the process, in a variety of ways, was violated constitutes involvement in the appeals process. In other words, contrary to the assurance in your letter to me of November 19th and contrary to the assurance in Dean Thompson's letter to me of November 13th, we believe that by virtue of her March 27th memo Dean Thompson played and continues to play a role in my appeal of President Rudenstine's decision to deny my tenure.

Sixth, Dean Thompson's own March 27th memo is what suggested to us that she was involved in my tenure review before the ad hoc stage, for her memo states that after a candidate has been recommended for tenure by his Department (but before the ad hoc stage)

The complete dossier is reviewed by the Dean and the Academic Deans, who concern themselves mainly with the procedural aspects of the search. (Carol J. Thompson, "The Tenure Appointment Process in the Faculty of Arts & Sciences," May 27, 1998)

If not Dean Thompson, then which members of the Dean's Office concerned themselves in my case "with the procedural aspects of the search"? Which Deans would have been responsible for considering the appropriateness of the participation by Associate Provost of the University and Professor Dennis Thompson in departmental deliberations about my tenure? Which Deans would have been responsible for ensuring that the ad hoc committee composed to advise President Rudenstine on my tenure contained members who were impartial and brought to the deliberations relevant expertise?

Seventh, we have noticed a curious discrepancy between Harvard's written guidelines concerning promotion and tenure in FAS and Dean Thompson's account in her memo of March 27th. In Harvard's written guidelines, as already noted, Dean Thompson and Dean Laura Gordon Fisher are explicitly mentioned as having responsibility for approving the "blind letter" (1996 revision, p. 12). This is an important stage of the tenure review process because it determines the precise field for which a candidate is being considered, the appropriate "comparison list of scholars," and to whom among a range of "outside scholars" the "blind letter" will be sent. Since the responses by outside scholars to the "blind letter" go into the dossier that is reviewed first by the candidate's department and then, if he is recommended for tenure, by the ad hoc committee, participation by members of the Dean's Office in the process at this early stage influences the outcome at all stages. In contrast to the 1996 revision of Harvard's published guidelines, Dean Thompson's memo of March 27, 1998 not only does not mention her own formal role in approving the "blind letter" but altogether omits reference to the role of the Dean's Office in this crucial early stage of the tenure review.

I would be grateful if you would let me know whether you still believe my understanding of the tenure review process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is inaccurate and if so in what ways. I would also appreciate it if you would let me know whether there are particulars relating to the tenure review process in my case about which I should know before proceeding with my appeal.

Again, thank you for writing to make my understanding of the tenure review process in FAS more accurate. If I do not hear from you by December 4th, I shall file with you on December 7th a formal grievance, in accordance with clause 3 of the "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances."

Sincerely,



Peter Berkowitz
Associate Professor of Government