Thus, the first panel wrote, Hartman was denied the "only safeguards one has against the unwarranted influence of subjective considerations." While the panel says it found no evidence to show that personal biases affected the decision, procedural defects "leave the question more open than it ought to be."

* The Academic Policy Committee asserts that "it is clear that the process used by the Department of City and Regional Planning for considering the quality of Dr. Hartman's teaching did not reflect the systematic and thorough process that one would hope to find in a quality institution." The process should have been more careful and the senior faculty "could and should have made themselves better informed," the panel adds.

However, the panel continues, the senior faculty did know that Hartman's teaching interests had shifted to a community organizing focus and that he saw the Urban Field Service (UFS) as academic, not extracurricular.

It then concludes that "while the process of review was neither systematic nor thorough, the Department did have informed grounds pertaining to Dr. Hartman's teaching on which to base a decision."

The review committee last fall appeared to reach a different conclusion on the department's evaluation of Hartman's teaching. Its report said the department undertook "no systematic attempt" to "assess, influence, or even find out precisely" what Hartman was teaching, despite the fact that "teaching performance purportedly was a central concern."

Evidence collected by the review committee also cast doubt on the two major reasons for the non-reappointment that senior faculty in the department have offered--that Hartman's course on housing did not follow traditional lines and that the assistant professor was not upholding his teaching duties.

'Not Clear'

"It is not clear," the panel said, to what extent the senior faculty had "any real appreciation" of what Hartman's course involved, nor did they "adequately express" their concerns to him. In addition, the report supports Hartman's contention that his administrative work as director of the UFS made it difficult for him to carry a normal teaching load.

The report of the policy committee is bluntly critical of the department's consideration of Hartman's scholarly and professional activities: "...while some knowledge of the quality of Dr. Hartman's research may be inferred, there is no evidence showing that a systematic review of Dr. Hartman's research took place."

The policy panel takes a skeptical view of unsolicited evaluations of Hartman sent to the Hartman Review Committee during its deliberations, stating that "these comments were themselves volunteered by persons interested in the case, and also cannot be said to constitute a systematic and balanced 'peer review' of publications."

But the Hartman Review Committee concluded in its report that the letters "suggest that Dr. Hartman's work was good by the standards of the field, though not of top quality even there, but certainly adequate to merit a tenured faculty position by the standards of the City and Regional Planning Department."

The policy panel's review includes several findings on the charge that Hartman's academic freedom was violated:

* Like the review committee, the members of the Academic Policy Committee state that opinions formed in March 1969 among senior faculty in the department were decisive in Hartman's rejection. While Hartman's role in the spring 1969 protests--including an hour-long visit he made to the occupied University Hall--"affected the attitudes of individuals toward him" when a formal decision was being made, according to the review panel's report, both panels agree that Hartman's fate did not change as a result.

* The senior faculty were aware and influenced by Hartman's stand on issues that they felt reflected Hartman's potential contribution to the department and to the GSD. These included not only teaching responsibilities and the role of the UFS but also Hartman's administrative behavior and personal relations with the faculty, which were marked, the panel says, by "continual friction."

'Highly Discretionary'

The policy committee adds that "we do not believe that the doctrine of academic freedom extends so far as to eliminate from consideration, in the highly discretionary process of reappointment," these issues.

The panel also says that "there is little doubt" that Hartman's criticisms of the department "were felt and resented" by the senior faculty. "Indeed," it adds, "it would require almost super-human forebearance for them [the attacks] not to have been so regarded."

However, the panel decided not to ascertain whether personal animosity or other criteria led to the faculty's decision because it believed "this task would be, as a practical matter, impossible.