Why was Stern blackballed? In such cases, the academic and political reasons tend to blur together. On the one hand, Stern writes slowly and reputedly mistreats graduate students. On the other hand, his record in the Columbia strike was mushy left, which was anathema to conservatives like Handlin.

The wounds were still red when Patrick Higonnet's bid for tenure came up in the Spring of that academic year. Higonnet was a Continental historian who specialized in modern France and could also cover Austria-Hungary. The Department was looking for someone to replace Crane Brinton, who had taught French history. It also needed someone to do Austria. Higonnet seemed to be the man.

Higonnet had even more going for him. His conservative politics pleased Handlin and the other Americanists. His ignorance of Germany satisfied Ford. The departmental chores he had performed softened up everybody. And the coup de grace: his father, a French inventor, had helped Stern's chief backer, David Landes, gain admittance to a number of important French archives. Higonnet was in the right place at the right time. The Department united behind him, and the President confirmed the appointment.

Higonnet may have outclassed his competitor, Robert Darnton of Princeton, on purely academic considerations, although in fact Darnton had published more written work. Whatever the case, the important point is that Higonnet did not have to battle with academic weapons alone. Politics, both personal and partisan, enter into decisions to hire as well as decisions not to hire.

***

Dear Miss Getachair,

I am a great teacher, and my students love me. Unfortunately I haven't published very much at all. You see, I've been too busy drawing up new courses and meeting with students. Do you think my department will understand? What are my chances for tenure?  ANXIOUS

Dear Anxious,

No. And nil.

JUST AS WE, like Dosteovsky, can imagine the modern Church crucifying Christ, so we can envision Harvard University terminating the contract of Socrates because he had produced no written work. Although all the written rules stipulate that "creative work," and not printed pages, determine a candidate's eligibility for tenure, in practice the dictum of "publish or perish" retains its force.

Scholarly work, and not teaching ability, decides the fate of the academic at Harvard. Defending the system, Dean Dunlop argues that the University must be able to predict a man's future. A professor's teaching ability can fluctuate sharply over the next thirty years, Dunlop maintains, but his capacity to produce creative written work will remain relatively constant. Ignoring the truth value of this dubious statement, we can still safely conclude that at Harvard, teaching comes second to research.

James C. Thomson Jr., Lecturer in History and one of the three young historians who did not receive tenure this year, expressed the view of most junior faculty when he said. "The system is so constructed in theory and practice as to provide good teaching only by accident. On the one hand, those hired for permanency are not hired with an eye to their teaching ability. On the other hand, those who are junior faculty teach under conditions of such stress, overwork and career anxiety, knowing the odds are 99 to 1 that they won't be kept here, that they put their energy into getting their theses and other publications into print to get themselves jobs elsewhere."

Although the charismatic Thomson did not receive tenure, he will stay at Harvard as curator of the Nieman Fellows program. Like most administrative posts, the appointment of curator is "without limit of time." The appointment extends indefinitely but can be terminated any time at the pleasure of the President. Such an appointment lacks the security of a tenured position. As one Faculty member observed wryly. "To get thrown out, a tenured professor really has to rape little girls. Lots of them. One wouldn't be enough." Presumably, for an administrator, one would be enough.

Thomson will continue to teach courses as a Lecturer in History. His tenure appointment, like many others in the History Department, collapsed because it was spread too thin over different areas. Thomson specializes in East Asian-American relations. This field is just gaining scholarly recognition, but to the academically conservative Harvard History Department, it is still unestablished. The East Asian wing of the Department supported Thomson's candidacy, but the Americanists opposed it. The Americanists won, and Thomson lost. In a similar episode, Ernest R. May, an American historian, backed the bid of Sam Williamson, a specialist in European diplomatic history. Caught between the two opposing camps of Americanists and Europeanists, Williamson was neither fish nor fowl. The Department would not recommend his promotion.

ONE WAY TO open a new field in a stuffy department is to raise money for an endowed chair. John K. Fairbank '29, Higginson Professor of History, is directing a fund drive for a chair in Vietnamese Studies, which will presumably be occupied by his protege, Alexander B. Woodside, assistant professor of History. The going price for an endowed chair is $1 million. The income on that sum is primarily used for salaries, which average $24,000 and do not exceed $33,000. Because Fairbank began the drive in 1967, when the cost of a chair was only $600,000, the University has set that amount as the target. The Ford Foundation donated half, and Fairbank has already raised another $150,000.