The failed tenure bid of a prominent associate professor of history revealed a rift between the University's older American historians and their younger colleagues who see the field's future as increasingly technical and specialized, department members said.

As surely as the outcome of the tenure review was a defeat for Dunwalke Associate Professor of American History Alan Brinkley, the members said, it was a victory for the department's older stalwarts, who support of what Dubois Professor of History Nathan I. Huggins termed "the Harvard style of American history."

"The Harvard style," Huggins said, was forged in 1940s and 1950s when Professor of History Emeritus Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. '38 and Loeb University Professor Emeritus Oscar Handlin dominated the field of American History.

"Harvard was different, strikingly different, than anywhere else," Huggins said. "The senior members saw themselves as historians of America--someone who could write about, talk about, all aspects of American History."

The senior department members who said they supported Brinkley's bid called him a leading representative of more specialized and quantitative view of American history that is coming to dominate the field. Brinkley won his department's endorsement in a vote one member termed "minorly in his favor," several said.

But dissent came from the most renowned proponents of Harvard's traditional, sweeping approach to American history, said department members, several of whom spoke on condition that they not be identified.

They said Adams University Professor Bernard Bailyn, Handlin and Trumbell Professor of American History Donald Fleming were among those who sunk the 33-year-old scholar's tenure chances with letters and comments to Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence.

In the face of the opposition, Spence halted Brinkley's review, the sources said. "If Handlin and Fleming turn their thumbs down on someone, you can forget it; he's not going through," said Aga Khan Professor of Iranian Richard Frye, a History Department member.

Several scholars said that different views of how American history should develop became as important to consideration of Brinkley as was the quality of his work.

"The questions I thought about were to what extent the methods of studying 20th century American history should be different than the methods ofstudying 18th century history," said Professor ofHistory Charles S. Maier.

Several scholars here and elsewhere saidHarvard's commitment to its traditional standardsthreatens to weaken the History Department asscholars in the image of Handlin and Schlesingerbecome more scarce.

"Some people believe that there isn't anyoneout there who has those kinds of qualities,"Huggins said.

"It is fair to say that the Schlesinger-Handlinstyle of history is regarded as the classicalperiod, so to speak, but it has been very muchchallenged, especially by young historians," saidShaw Livermore '48, a professor of history at theUniversity of Michigan.

In conversation about Brinkley's review,department members frequently used the term"quality of mind," saying that those who objectedto tenuring the scholar found his workinadequately expansive or reinterpretive.

Said Frye: "Fleming and Handlin found the worktoo journalistic."