Rosovsky outlines the goal of the ad hoc stagein his book, writing that the body is convened "togive the president the most neutral advicepossible, unaffected by local friendships orprejudices."

Mansfield explained that "at different stagesof consideration, outside advisors are brought into give their opinions," as a way of reducing"biases to a minimum."

Mansfield said that in the Berkowitz case, thesystem broke down because partisanship infiltratedthe deliberative process.

The ad hoc committee does not have a monopolyon influencing the ultimate decision-maker,Rudenstine. Specifically, Mansfield said, "thosein the chain of command" are in a position toaffect the president's tenure verdicts.

According to Mansfield, this reality can work"either for good or for ill."

He offered that in spite of the potentialpitfalls of the current tenure review process, he"wouldn't want a system of officials who werenever in a position to take informal advice."

Berkowitz's second major complaint, however,relates to the possibility that back-channelinfluence corrupted the process of his tenurereview.

Because Thompson has a part-time administrativerole in the provost's office, Berkowitz said hisparticipation introduced "the power and theprestige of a high University official" intodiscussions at the departmental level.

Thompson rejected any suggestion that hisstatus as a University official inflates hisinfluence with other faculty members.

"It is false and insulting to suggest that mycolleagues in the government department woulddefer to me or anybody else in that way," Thompsonsaid. "Tenured faculty don't bow to anyone."

Berkowitz also said Thompson could have undulyaffected Rudenstine--beyond asserting his opinionas a government professor--because his duties asassociate provost include advising the presidenton curricular matters.

Thompson insisted, however, that his role indeliberations over granting Berkowitz tenure didnot extend beyond the government department. Hedid not appear before the ad hoc committee, as hewas out of town on the day it met.

"I participated in the department as I normallydo, and I didn't play any role after thedepartment," Thompson said.

But according to Rosovsky, every tenuredFaculty member in the department of a candidatefor tenure is obliged to send a confidentialletter to the ad hoc committee explaining his orher vote at the departmental level.

Although he was under no compulsion topublicize his opinion, Thompson sent Berkowitz aletter explaining why he voted against him at thedepartmental level. The letter, which was markedconfidential, entered the public domain when itwas exhibited in Nesson's "Evidence" course.