The fact that he made such an unusual review and considered adopting special arrangements for it, the first report said, "suggests that he had serious doubts about the judgment of the department, and was aware that the procedures normally used...were seriously deficient by accepted standards of due process."

But, the panel added, Kilbridge declined to initiate special procedures for Hartman's case.

The policy committee says all five of its members believed that "a department acting without personal animosity, reasonably and legitimately [could] conclude, on the facts listed above, that there were other persons who could make a greater potential contribution to the Department."

The Hartman Review Committee, on the other hand, speculated that Hartman might have been rehired "had there been thorough deliberation on the needs of the department and school and on Dr. Hartman's contributions and qualifications, after careful collection of all relevant evidence."

The Good Old Days

The Hartman dispute dates back to 1969, when the assistant professor--then prominent in a reform movement within the Design School and associated with the students who occupied University Hall--was told he would neither be reappointed assistant professor nor promoted to associate professor.

Hartman requested a review of his non-reappointment in June 1970. For the next two years procedural disputes delayed creation of a review committee. In mid-1972, over Hartman's objections, the GSD selected a five-remember investigatory panel of outside faculty.

Hartman's charges center around two allegations:

* That, as states in the review panel's report, "procedural deficiencies in the decision making process precluded fair and adequate consideration of his case on the merits"; and

* That since there was evidence of friction between Hartman and higher-ups in the planning department, the GSD and the University and since he had received "no satisfactory explanation of the decison [not to rehire] in terms of valid academic criteria," then it was a "fair inference that personal and political considerations violative of his rights had played a major role in the decision."

While the review committee's original charge was confined to the second issue--which it labeled academic freedom--the panel also chose to examine the first issue, due process.

Due Process

Among the findings of the Academic Policy panel on the due process issue are the following:

* While appointment procedures used in the planning department in 1969 were "quite informal," Hartman's case "was not treated with greater informality than others at the time."

While this parallels statements in the Hartman Review Committee report, the latter also explored the consequences of the use of procedures it calls "grossly inadequate," "execrable," and "shockingly lax" when measured against standards of the AAUP.