One of the many perks of tenure--and one of the reasons why it is such an important aspect of an academic community--is that it enables a professor to conduct his research in whatever way he or she sees fit, within certain ethical and legal guidelines.

By obtaining tenure, winning the approval of both his faculty and the University president, Mack retains the right to conduct his research in whatever manner he sees fit. No matter what its opinion of Mack's work or methods, the Medical School bound itself to tolerate his scholarship when it recommended him for tenure.

By second-guessing one of its own tenured faculty, the University is violating the sacred pact that has allowed ideas of all kinds to flourish for so many years. Even worse, the Medical School has set an unfortunate precedent for future episodes involving unorthodox professors. The incident raises some troubling questions that we should consider. Will future Medical School faculty and administrators appeal to this incident as a precedent for investigating others with opinions that are unconventional or politically incorrect? Will the Tosteson-Rehlman rationale be employed by deans in other faculties less restrained than Knowles to investigate the likes of Harvey Mansfield?

"We don't have room in our culture for this," Mack told The Crimson in an interview last spring. "It's the elite people, my colleagues, who decide what we're supposed to believe, and to them this isn't supposed to be."

Mack was correct.

The Medical School was wrong to have convened this fact-finding committee in the first place. It was wrong, in light of what has been made public so far, to have reprimanded Mack at all. It was wrong to have leaked information to the media in an obvious attempt at smearing Mack.

It is simply reprehensible that the elitist powers-that-be at Harvard University have once again refused to do the right thing in order to maintain their sacred orthodoxy.