Document 1

Excerpts from Harvard's Procedures for Tenure Review in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences

TEACHING APPOINTMENTS

I. Tenured Professors...................................................................11

A. Search Authorization............................................................... 11
B. Identification of Candidates..................................................... 11
C. "Short Lists"........................................................................... 12
D. "Blind Letter"......................................................................... 12
E. Preparation of Dossier and Recommendation to the Dean........ 12
F. Ad Hoc Committee Review and Presidential Approval............ 13
G. Offer of Appointment............................................................. 13

Documentation Checklist for Tenure Appointment

Recommendation...............................................................15

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. "Blind Letter" (1996 revision)

The department prepares a blind letter to be sent to outstanding scholars in the field of the proposed appointment. The Department should try to elicit at least 12 responses to the blind letter. Individual cases may suggest variations within the basic format of the letter. Chairs should submit a draft of the blind letter to Carol Thompson or Laura Gordon Fisher for review on the Dean's behalf.

The blind letter will normally include:

1. a broad description of the position to be filled;

2. the names of the leading scholars in alphabetical order, noting that the individuals listed have not necessarily been asked if they are willing to be considered, and that the list has been selected for purposes of the department's own internal evaluation;

3. a request that the individuals named be ranked absolutely and comparatively according to the respondent's judgment (information regarding teaching ability may also be requested);

4. a request for names and evaluations of other comparable candidates, including minorities and women, who in the respondent's view may have been overlooked; and

5. an indication that the University intends, to the extent permitted by law, to keep the response confidential and to make it available only to the senior members of the department and those involved in the formal review process. (p. 12)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G. Ad Hoc Committee Review and Presidential Approval (1994 revision)

[The discrepancy between the letter assigned to this stage in the review process by the table of contents ("F") and the letter assigned to this stage in the text of the guidelines ("G") is found in the original.]

When the dossier is in order, the Dean will ask the President to convene and ad hoc committee drawing on, but not necessarily restricted to, a list of members suggested by the department. The purpose of the ad hoc committee review is to assure that the University takes the broadest possible view of opportunities to recruit the ablest people and to make certain that nominees are judged strictly on their merits as scientists, scholars and teachers. The committee is ordinarily composed of 3 or 4 scholars ("generalists" as well as "specialists") from outside the University, 2 tenured members of the Faculty from outside the department, and (ex officio) the dean and the President. Other academic deans, as appropriate, will also serve in an ex officio capacity.

After reviewing the dossier and hearing departmental witnesses, the ad hoc committee advises the President on 2 points:

1. the importance of the field to the long-term development of the department; and

2. the quality of the proposed nominee.

The final decision on all tenure recommendation is made by the President. (p. 13)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[After it recommends a candidate for tenure, a department must submit a "completed dossier" to the Dean's Office, which has responsibility for assembling the ad hoc committee]

DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIST FOR TENURE APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION (1996 revision)

. . .

B. Separate letter from the chair proposing the names of at least 5 or 6 scholars outside the University (including names of minorities and women whenever possible) who might be asked to serve on the ad hoc committee. Scholars should be chosen for their objectivity and competence to judge whether the proposed appointment represents the best direction of development for the department, as well as for their ability to appraise the qualifications of the nominee. Please include a brief biographical sketch of each scholar. As a general rule, persons who would be considered competitive candidates should not be proposed. Although it is not desirable to choose members who have already responded to the blind letter, this is sometimes unavoidable. Department should be aware that if this occurs the letter previously written by an ad hoc committee member will be withdrawn from the file. The letter should also suggest 3 or 4 Harvard faculty members who might serve on the committee, and the names of witnesses who will present the department's case or who wish to register a dissenting opinion.

In addition, a confidential letter from each voting member of the department should be sent directly to the Dean, giving the writer's view of the appointment and of the department's nominee. These will be distributed to the ad hoc committee. (p. 16)