Document 24

December 29, 1997

Matthew H. Feinberg, Esquire
Feinberg & Kamholtz
125 Summer Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110

Re: Peter Berkowitz

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

I am responding to your letter of December 5, 1997, addressed to members of the Joint Committee on Appointments, regarding the ad hoc review of Professor Berkowitz.

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.

Your claim that five of the six member of the ad hoc committee were not on the "official slate" submitted by the Department to the Dean is factually in error and misstates the Faculty's procedure for determining the list of scholars invited for membership on a particular committee. First, there are five, not six, ad hoc committee members. Second, the Department submits no official slate of members. Rather, the Associate Dean responsible for determining the composition of the committee consults broadly, taking into account suggestions made by the Department and by other scholars in the field. It is common that scheduling or other considerations prevent invited scholars from participating. Additional consultation on potential members is then required until a full committee is assembled. That is the process that was undertaken in the Berkowitz case. There is absolutely no evidence of irregularity or unfairness.

Your claim that all five of the "new" ad hoc committee members were hostile to Professor Berkowitz's published views, (a "fact" that was assertedly known or should have been known in the selection process) is similarly mistaken. Ad hoc committee members are selected, and were selected in this case, to bring substantive expertise and a variety of perspectives to bear on the deliberations. I could find no evidence to support your assertion that five (or any number of) committee members were known to be antipathetic to Professor Berkowitz's published work, or to show that hostility to his work was known, should have been known, or otherwise figured in the selection process.

Finally, you claim that the age and academic rank of some "new" ad hoc committee members made them competitors of Professor Berkowitz and, as such, they should have been disqualified. Again, I could find no evidence to support this assertion. I do not, of course, know which committee members you believe presented this conflict.

All available information indicates that Professor Berkowitz's ad hoc review was conducted in compliance with all applicable policies and that he received full and fair consideration for appointment to tenure. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call me. I will be out of the country until January 9, but would be happy to speak with you thereafter.

Sincerely, Anne Taylor

cc. Neil L. Rudenstine
Harvey V. Fineberg
Judith Richards Hope, Esquire
Stephen B. Kay
Hanna H. Gray
Sharon Gagnon