"The environment in which students study and teachers write and teach makes a great deal of difference. My own experience is that there is a problem [at Harvard] in that area at least as far as students go," said Georgetown University Law School Professor Wendy Williams, who is considered to be a legal scholar who sympathizes with the left.

Williams said in the winter of 1984, when she was a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, students told her they had to tailor their comments in class around the political views of the professor.

"You had to try to psyche out what the professor's political views were, and either purport to agree with them or come out in total opposition. In other words, there was a polarization which students felt limited their ability to explore different options and find their own answers," Williams said.

"I think a classroom should be a place that's safe enough that people feel that they can express their views without going on the line," she said. "I had to make an extra effort to create that atmosphere in my classroom."

Other professors said that while they had no, first-hand experience at Harvard it is possible for the faculty to have ideological differences that would not affect a student's educational experience.

"A faculty can have some very substantial divisions on philosophical issues for a long time and still continue to do its thing in the classroom," said Jesse Choper, dean of the Law School at the University of California at Berkeley.

"A faculty can be deeply divided in its legal philosophy and political views, but still remain committed to creating a community in which they are able to work together peacefully. One hopes that Harvard will return to that category again," Williams said. "It's not there now."

Others do not share Williams' pessimism about how much the advanced state of Harvard's problems affects students' lives. "I don't think it affects the kind of legal education that the average student gets," said Jack Friedenthal, associate dean for academic affairs at Stanford University Law School.

"If people weren't coming, or if faculty members had to have a particular philosophical moral belief before they came, maybe it would affect students. But I don't see much danger there myself," Friedenthal said.

But many scholars said that the problems at Harvard, if they are not having a severe impact now, will certainly hurt the school in the long run.

Professors said young scholars might not choose to come to Harvard because of its reputation for division and political consideration in the tenure process.

Stewart Macauley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, continued his colleague Trubek's metaphor. "I don't want to move to Beirut," he said. "There may be wonderful things going on in Beirut, but you and I don't know."

"Many people don't want to be in a war. Why would one want to play in the Beirut symphony, for instance? It may be a great symphony, but there must be another place for me to play my trombone," said Macauley, considered to be sympathetic with the more liberal legal scholarship.

And even if a scholar wants to brave Beirut, he may still stay away if he doesn't think he'll receive a lifetime post there.

"People who want to teach at law schools have other options" than going to Harvard, said Duke Law School Dean Paul Carrington, a vehement opponent of the crits. "If there is a perception that there are various problems in the tenure process, it might be more difficult for a school to secure appointments."