Document 31



27 August 1998

Jeremy R. Knowles
Dean
5 University Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dean Knowles:

As you know, I have appealed President Rudenstine's decision, taken in April 1997, to reject the Government Department's recommendation of February 1997 that I be promoted and awarded tenure. The appeal, addressed to the Joint Committee on Appointments and constructed with the help of Professor Charles Nesson and attorney Matthew Feinberg, requests that the Joint Committee set the President's decision aside and establish a fair procedure for reconsidering the Government Department's recommendation.

In the appeal, we argue that the tenure review process in my case suffered from two fundamental flaws. First, four of the five members on the ad hoc committee that reviewed my work and advised the President were not drawn from the list the Government Department was asked to submit to the Office of the Dean and all four of these members show evidence of bias or lack of relevant expertise.

Second, the involvement in the tenure review process of Professor of Government and Associate Provost Dennis F. Thompson, who opposed my tenure at all stages of the review, compromised the integrity of the procedure in two ways. First, by playing his "usual role" in the Government Department's tenure review process (Harvard Crimson, January 12, 1998), Professor Thompson introduced the influence of a high university administration official and the power and prestige of both the Provost's Office and the President's Office into departmental deliberations. Second, Professor Thompson's participation at the departmental level and then in the ad hoc process by means of his "customary letter to the Dean" (Harvard Crimson, January 12, 1998) introduced into President Rudenstine's deliberations the opinions and analysis of an individual who in effect acted as both judge and party in the same cause. For at the same time that Professor Thompson, as a member of the faculty, prosecuted the case against my tenure within the department, he also served, in his official role as Associate Provost of the University, as an advisor on "substantial academic issues" (Harvard University Gazette, September 19, 1996) to the President, the final judge in tenure decisions at Harvard.

In a memo issued March 27, 1998 to clarify the tenure review process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J. Thompson, speaking for your office, explains that the Office of the Dean is responsible for ensuring fair process in tenure review. Dean Thompson writes that once a candidate for tenure has received a positive vote from his Department, "the complete dossier is reviewed by the Dean and the Academic Deans, who concern themselves mainly with the procedural aspects of the search."

After correspondence with Michael Roberts, former Secretary of the University, and a telephone conversation with Anne Taylor, the University's General Counsel, Professor Nesson spoke with me and with Matthew Feinberg. We agreed that I should now write to you. I ask you to consider whether FAS procedures apply to my appeal because the Office of the Dean is responsible for assembling ad hoc committees and because our appeal involves a faculty member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

I have enclosed copies of the two letters that we have already sent to the Joint Committee on Appointments. I have also enclosed the reply to our first letter from Anne Taylor. As you will see, Ms. Taylor assured us on December 29th, 1997, in response to Matthew Feinberg's letter of December 5, 1997, that she had investigated our allegations of procedural impropriety in Harvard's review of my tenure, and on the basis of her "inquiry" she declared that "there is absolutely no evidence of irregularity or unfairness." Yet our own subsequent investigation, some of the results of which are summarized in our letter of May 26, 1998, revealed substantial evidence of both irregularity and unfairness and raised important new questions about the tenure review process in my case. Although three months have passed, we have not received a reply to our May 26 letter, either from Anne Taylor or from the members of the Joint Committee to whom our letter was sent. Further information on the appeal can be obtained by visiting <http://cyber.harvard.edu/berkowitz>.

I believe that upon examination you will agree that the process which led up to President Rudenstine's decision to reject the Government Department's recommendation that I be awarded tenure was fundamentally flawed and that in a variety of ways Harvard failed to comply with its own established practices and written guidelines. I therefore ask your help in setting aside President Rudenstine's decision and establishing a fair process for reconsidering the Government Department's recommendation.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with you.

Sincerely,

Peter Berkowitz
Associate Professor of Government