WHEN the Sociology Department recently decided not to recommend a tenured position for Theda R. Skocpol, associate professor of Sociology, it acted against its own interests, the interests of students in the field, and the interests of the University in adding more young scholars and women to the Faculty.

Skocpol's scholarly record and the needs of the department make the decision all the more appalling. Sociology currently has one or two open senior positions; Skocpol has earned the respect of sociologists across the country, as tenure offers from four universities and two major awards last summer for her book (one the highest in the field) show. And colleagues and students consider her one of the best teachers in the department.

Some senior members of the Sociology Department opposed Skocpol's tenure because they disagreed with her comparative-historical methodology and thought it might lead the department in what they considered the wrong direction. But when institutions like Stanford University, the University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin are actively trying to lure Skocpol to their departments--some of the best in the country--Harvard should recognize that it would benefit by including her viewpoints as well.

Supporters and opponents of Skocpol in the department maintain that sex and political bias did not play a part in the department's decision. Regardless of that issue, though, the department should have jumped at this chance to include a highly qualified woman in its ranks--given the University's stated commitment to affirmative action.

But the primary explanation for the vote is one most often heard in cases like Skocpol's--she simply hadn't proven herself worthy, by Harvard standards, of tenure here. Although Skocpol looks like a "hot prospect" now, worried departmental administrators are not willing to bet on what she will do in coming decades. They want more proven--and inevitably older--scholars instead.

In the long run, the University's continued refusal to go out on what it sees as an academic limb will hurt the quality of education here. By turning away associate professor after associate professor, departments deny themselves some of the brightest academic prospects for the future and reduce the chances of their returning here ten or fifteen years later -- when Harvard finally deems them worthy of a permanent position.

Whatever the motivation of the Sociology Department in denying Skocpol tenure, the implications of the decision are clear and distressing. The University has again ducked a major responsibility in a case where the needs of the academic department, the desires of students and the goals of affirmative action all conspired to make that responsibility an easy one.