In a December news article and in his letter to The Crimson (Jan. 12), Department of English chair Leo Damrosch has chosen repeatedly to invoke age as a factor in my tenure consideration. As much as I have appreciated Prof. Damrosch's strong support, I have found this discussion of age in a tenure case perplexing.

If I were someone planning to continue as a member of the Harvard community, I would want to ask the following questions about Prof. Damrosch's comments:

If 33 (for example) is too young, what is the Age of Tenurability at Harvard?

What relation does the requirement of age in tenure cases bear to the University's non-discrimination statement?

Are there other undisclosed criteria Harvard uses in making determinations of tenure--as opposed to, or supplementing, the record of scholarly work and teaching?

What effect will the use of age as a factor in tenure cases have on Harvard's ability to attract and retain talented junior faculty, and thus on undergraduate and graduate education?

If Harvard considers "youth" to be a risk, why does the University continue to employ a relatively young junior faculty? Why, specifically, is the English department currently looking to hire a new junior faculty member straight out of graduate school?

Is the discourse of youth/age here short-hand for, or distraction from, other issues in this case? --Jeffrey Masten, Gardner Cowles Associate Professor in the Humanities