Predictably the critera for which an ad hoc committee looks in a candidate are scholarly achievement and potential, as well as teaching ability. This does not mean that the candidate must necessarily have published prolifically, according to Ford. Rather, "he must be alive: the constructive influence he may have on his colleagues is sometimes more important that the number of his publications."

Ad hoc committees recognize that publishing is not an end in itself, according to Ford, but they do consider it the most reliable indication that the candidate will be able to grow with his field. There are tenured Faculty members who have published no more than a few journal articles. Nevertheless, in the History Department, Fleming says, "It is very difficult to imagine that a candidate wouldn't have published a book, in many instances two books--one of them being his Ph.D. thesis."

Harvard has chosen to keep the deliberations of ad hoc committees secret and thus avoid the risk of public outrage that might attend the rejection of a tenure nomination, such as occurred at Yale this year in the Bernstein case. It is impossible to know for sure whether or not the committee act as a rubber stamp--whether the refusal of a nomination is a common occurrence, or whether the existence of the committees discourages thoughtless nominations.

Ford and Fleming disagree on the frequency with which tenure nominations are "bumped back" to the Department by ad hoc committees. Ford says that it happens infrequently but that when it does, the Department is free to re-submit the nomination with new evidence. Fleming agrees that such a course of action is possible, adding however, the Dean has been known to blithely ignore such re-submissions.

Though Fleming insists that his department keeps a close eye on history departments at other universities throughout the Western Hemisphere in an effort to discover potential Harvard teachers, either he is nearsighted, or else Harvard University is uniquely adept at training scholars. Of the 24 tenured men, eight went to Harvard College and Harvard Graduate School and nine others did their graduate work here.

The early retirement age is another peculiarity of the Harvard tenure scheme that seems to work against the best interests of the University. In recent years, the Dean of the Faculty has sought to retain the services of elderly men who are still capable of productive work by allowing them to stay on for two or, in some cases, four extra years. According to Fleming, "such a high proportion of the Faculty is asked to stay on that those who are allowed to retire are deeply hurt." As a result, a professor who has the slightest doubt about being asked to stay is tempted to resign near the age of 60 and to accept a position where employment is guaranteed to a later age. This allows him to save potential face and to insure that he continues to earn a living for several extra years.

These are at least two problem areas in the appointments system where reform would benefit the History Department and Harvard. First, because the proportion of Harvard-trained people on the tenured staff (2/3) is so high, the students may get a one-sided view of the discipline. The simplest means of opening the doors would be to abolish the rank of instructor; only in this way will bright young Ph.D.'s from other institutions be induced to come to Harvard as junior faculty members and enter the race for tenure. The presence of the word "professor" in one's title apparently becomes very important to a man who has been a student for more than 20 years.

One line of argument holds that only people who have studied here can teach as Harvard requires--can teach tutorial as well as more conventional courses. This point of view probably overestimates the difficulty