As many as six senior Law School faculty members, opposed to administrative maneuvers by the school's radical professors, are considering appointments at other, more conservative law schools, professors said yesterday.

Although only one of the six has already decided to leave the University, professors said the other tenured professors are entertaining job possibilities at schools such as Stanford, Yale, Columbia and the University of Chicago.

The six constitute one-tenth of the tenured law faculty.

Their deliberations come during one of the most intense academic and administrative disputes in the school's history. The faculty has split into radical and anti-radical factions over the appointment of new faculty members and the growth of Critical Legal Studies (CLS), a progressive field which questions the basic tenets of law and legal scholarship.

Many conservative and moderate professors cite the attitudes of Harvard's radical legal scholars and the school's guidelines for granting promotions as reasons for their dissatisfaction. They charge that Harvard is now the most liberal law school in the country and that some professors are using the democratic system of appointments to keep it that way.

The faculty has not attracted a top legal scholar from outside Harvard since 1981, and subsequently most life-long appointments have gone to junior faculty members already at the school. Disen-

"In other schools, there is a better working relationship between professors, who get along with CLS professors just fine," said Clark.

"The appointments problem here is a major thing," Clark added. "I don't like spending my time on academic politics, it's not productive and it's not what constitutes a good working relationship."

CLS Responsible

Several professors, including Bator, have said that recent CLS scholarship lacks integrity and does not speak well for Harvard, the stronghold of CLS. Bator's new school, the University of Chicago, is considered much more conservative with only a small CLS representation.

In a recent debate on the subject, Bator described CLS as "reductionist." Although he said the founding fathers of CLS were "brilliant," he called second and third generation scholarship in the area "thin and unsatisfying."

But his and other professors' main objection is that the radical "program has led them to subordinate academic ideals and standards to political ideals and standards." For this reason, Bator charged in the debate, CLS has had a "disastrous effect on the intellectual and institutional life of Harvard Law School."

Shavell alleged that since CLS professors disregard much previous scholarship, they "are much less willing to look at indexes of merit."

"I believe the quality of the faculty has been and will continue to be lowered if the school makes appointments that the CLS group favors," said Shavell.

"I am not at all confident that [the appointments problem] will work itself out," Shavell said. "It is certainly possible that some professors will leave Harvard."