To the Editors of The Crimson:

The story in the Crimson of November 16 presents a misleading and incomplete account regarding tenure files in the Barbara Jackson case.

When Harvard learned that some tenure files held by the University Archives were destroyed (no files or other papers relating to Jackson herself were destroyed). we reconstructed the files and provided them to Jackson's attorney. On December 22. 1986--nearly 11 months ago--a conference was held before Judge Woodlock, who found no wrongdoing and no reason for the court to intervene.

In February and March of this year Jackson's attorney took the deposition of several Business School and Archive staff assistants involved in records retention. Their testimony was fully consistent with the facts presented to the court, and Jackson's attorney has sought no further action by the court. Thus. the matter has been closed for over eight months.

The Crimson's breathless conclusion that these depositions "may prove to be significant new evidence in the case" is therefore wrong, and creates the erroneous impression that the depositions are news. In fact, the Crimson is eight months late in reporting these events--a fact that the story omits.

The Case is set for trial in February 1988. Harvard's position remains what it has always been: Barbara Jackson received an exhaustively fair and thorough evaluation of her tenure caandidacy. Her gender had nothing to do with the decision, and her case against Harvard has no merit. Office of the General Counsel