Though Rosovsky writes, "the composition of thecommittee, and especially the choice of outsiders,can affect the outcome" of a tenure review, theformer dean also states that it is the presidentwho has final authority.

"De facto, the final decision rests with thepresident," Rosovsky writes.

Berkowitz's ad hoc committee included LeonKass, an ethics and biology expert from theUniversity of Chicago; University of Pennsylvaniapolitical scientist Ellen Kennedy; and IsaacKramnick from Cornell University's politicalscience department. The Harvard members of thecommittee were Starch Professor of PsychologyJerome Kagan and Professor of German Maria M.Tatar.

According to several sources, four of the fivecommittee members advised Rudenstine not to grantBerkowitz tenure.

The Tenure Appeal

Berkowitz said he plans to allege Harvardviolated its own standards for tenure review inthe course of deliberations over his promotion.

"In this appeal we ask Harvard to respect itsprocedures and honor the worthy principlesembodied in them," Berkowitz said.

He stressed that his complaint does notconstitute a character assassination on any of theprincipals in his case, but his grievance dwellson the role of Professor of Government andAssociate Provost Dennis F. Thompson in thedeliberations over his appointment.

In an article that ran in the Nov. 26, 1996,issue of the New Republic, Berkowitz had harshlycriticized a book Thompson co-authored. Thereview, titled "The Debating Society," was part ofBerkowitz's dossier considered by the ad hoccommittee.

Berkowitz's complaint about the composition ofthe ad hoc committee centers on the fact that onlyone of its members was on an original list ofrecommended scholars submitted by the governmentdepartment when it endorsed Berkowitz for tenure.

The dean's office is under no compulsion toadhere to departmental suggestions in appointingcommittee members. But the University's"Guidelines for Tenure Review" stipulate that thead hoc committee should be composed of "the ablestpeople" who will ensure that "nominees are judgedstrictly on their merits."

In his appeal, Berkowitz states that Kennedy,Kramnick and Kagan do not possess relevantexpertise in his field. He also suggests that themajority of the committee would have been inclinedto rule against him because of ideologicaldifferences, and so the membership failed toexhibit diversity of opinion.

None of the five panelists was willing tocomment for this article.

But Professor of Law Richard D. Parker, anexpert in procedural ethics, expressed hisconcerns about the composition of the deliberativeteam.

"It strikes me as a strange committee at bestand probably unfair," he said.