One test case of the new system is the English Department, where one associate professor was denied tenure last week and another is under consideration for promotion. Some English professors say that Associate Professor of English Joseph A. Boone was denied tenure at least in part because the department's senior faculty still held to the old attitudes that had formed around the Graustein system.

"I think we were getting very mixed signals from the dean's office," says one junior professor who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "With this abolishment of the Graustein chart we were told that we no longer had to worry about slots. But I understand that the [senior faculty who voted against Boone] thought that there were indeed a limited number of slots and that to promote him would take away from future slots."

Lowell Professor of the Humanities William Alfred, who was present at the departmental deliberations on Boone, concedes that at least some of his colleagues "were looking at [the new system] in sort of a confused way."

As one junior faculty member says, "It shows just how entrenched the system is. It is impossible for senior faculty to think outside the old rules even when new ones are in place."

Spence's Agenda

But while the change may seem bureaucratic rather than substantive, its implications could prove to be far-reaching. Spence, aided by a group of new, more activist department heads, has seized upon the system of faculty staffing as a long-range method for insuring that his agenda is preserved after he leaves office.

Spence's goal of improving the chances that Harvard's junior faculty will be considered for tenure here is largely dependent upon his wiping away the layers of tradition that have effectively barred young scholars from internal advancement.

And the tool that Spence has chosen for helping to implement his plan is one uniquely suited to the dean's background and management style. It is a quiet, behind-the-scenes set of changes that Spence hopes to effect, and it is perhaps simpler to build consensus around complex revisions in hiring formulas rather than a straightforward change in policy, professors say.

Spence, an economist by training whose field of expertise is organizational behavior, came into his tenure as dean four years ago with the idea of possibly changing the old system, according to administrators. "I can't say that I intended to eliminate the Graustein system when I was first appointed," Spence says.

"What became clear to me as I worked with department heads on appointments plans was that the old system made it difficult to plan for reviews for promotion of junior faculty," he wrote in answer to questions submitted by The Crimson. "Department heads needed greater flexibility than the Graustein system provided. Hence we eliminated it."

`Faddish' Disciplines

But by eliminating the Graustein system, administrators may have sparked the opposition of faculty members who feel that the old structure ensured that Harvard would maintain its reputation for faculty excellence.

"The principle philosophy of the Graustein formula was stability--that departments should stay at a particular size forever," Bossert says, adding "and stability is probably a very good philosophy."

Bossert concedes that limitations exist to the stability principle: "The principle problem is that the assumption of stability means very little flexibility in having some fields grow as dictated by the scholarly needs of academe."

But, on balance, Bossert says he is more worried that the new academic staffing system may introduce new fields into the curriculum at the expense of more established ones that have contributed to building Harvard's reputation.