The mass exodus of junior faculty in the English department, a breach in the tenure process and the gone one day, back the next flip-flop of Waggoner Professor of Economics Robert J. Barro added to the mysteries surrounding tenure at Harvard this academic year.

Assistant Professors Shannon Jackson and Nicholas Jenkins will leave the English Department next year, bringing the total of departing junior faculty to seven within two years. Many cited the virtual impossibility of receiving tenure as the reason for their departure.

Harvard has always held the ad hoc committee review of its tenure process sacred. So many were stunned this April when Andrew G. Myers received tenure in the Chemistry and Chemical Biology department without an ad hoc committee review.

President Neil L. Rudenstine admitted that this is rare, but does not indicate a revision of the tenure process.

"This procedure, though extremely rare, was not precedent-setting," Rudenstine said, noting it has occurred once before in the past seven years during his tenure.

In addition, Barro decided to accept a lucrative tenure offer at Columbia and then changed his mind shortly after, deciding instead, to remain at Harvard.

With last year's tenure denials of Peter Berkowitz and Bonnie Honig still fresh in many minds, many question whether or not Harvard's tenure system is the best one possible. The closed-door process is cloaked in mystery, leaving many confused about the qualifications necessary to receive tenure.

Harvard's tenure system is very different from other institutions. The department nominates a candidate who then is examined by the Dean of the Faculty and the Academic Deans. After this review, the Deans may pass the nomination onto Rudenstine.

In order to receive the tenure nomination, the nominee must be judged to be a leading scholar in the field. A short list of five candidates is sent to leading scholars. The scholars are then asked to evaluate the candidates.

The letter requesting outside evaluation does not indicate if any person on the list is being seriously considered for tenure. Harvard is unusual, because instead of using outside evaluation as a measuring stick, the University may offer tenure to an outside scholar rather than its own internal candidate.

Harvard then convenes an ad hoc committee of experts from within Harvard and from other universities. The committee advises Rudenstine on the tenure candidate.

Critics argue this system makes receiving tenure as a junior faculty member a near impossibility.

English Department Woes

The departures of Jackson and Jenkins are not the first within the English Department. These two departures join the ranks of Jeffrey Masten, Cowles associate professor in the humanities, who departed after a tenure denial last year, and four other un-tenured professors who have left the English department in the last two years.

"The evidence is pretty unambiguous--there are problems retaining and recruiting [junior faculty members]," Masten said.

In addition, Assistant Professor Barbara Clair Freeman was also scheduled to leave as her non-tenured contract expired. But, Freeman will continue at Harvard next year.

"We found ourselves rather depleted in course offerings [with the recent departures and planned leaves]," said Leo Damrosch, chair of the English department. "Barbara Freeman has been a very popular teacher and an excellent colleague and we were delighted when the Dean [of the Faculty] agreed that she might teach in our department for one more year."

Two of this year's departing junior faculty have accepted offers at other schools. Jackson will teach at the University of California at Berkeley and Jenkins will teach at Stanford. Jenkins' position at Stanford will be a tenure track one.

Jenkins admits the reason for his departure was his doubt that he would have received tenure at Harvard.

"As a young assistant professor, most people feel they don't have a long-term future," Jenkins said. "The job market is tough and you have to take a good offer when it comes up."

Damrosch expressed sadness at the departure of the junior faculty. He also said he understood their reasons for departure.

"It's pure and simple--Harvard is one of the few places where it's almost impossible to get tenure," Damrosch said.

Damrosch said he recognized that Harvard has a long record of not granting tenure to most junior faculty. He cited the difficulty in finding a job as the reason many junior faculty are not staying for their full appointment.

"There's more anxiety about tenure than there used to be," Damrosch said. "People used to say, `After my years at Harvard, I'll land on my feet.' but now if they have another option, they'll take the other option."

But tenure rates for junior faculty are improving. According to Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles' annual letter to the Faculty the tenure rate for junior faculty last year was 15 to 20 percent. This represents a slight increased chance in promotion.

But some believe the incentive is still too low.

"I think that [the low tenure rate] has discouraged junior faculty in the past, and, in the absence of reform, it will continue to do so," Masten said. "Junior faculty in English are departing more frequently and after much shorter stays than when I started at Harvard in 1991."

Many question the effects that the loss of so many young scholars will have on the English department.

Damrosch said due to the "diminished" number of junior faculty, the English department may be able to offer fewer courses next year.

These losses are also key to the English department, because they follow last year's highly-publicized departure of Masten.

Some people in the English department question how the lack of "new blood" in the English department will impact the department's future.

"It's a problem because you want to have a blend of new people and new approaches," Jenkins said. "You're missing a generation without junior faculty."

Skipping Steps

Myers was granted tenure in Chemistry and Chemical Biology this year in a process which bypassed the ad-hoc committee review. University administrators attributed this departure from the usual procedure to the time constraints and extreme merits of the Myers' case.

Myers came from Caltech and is considered one of the best synthetic organic chemists in the world.

The ultimate decision to bypass the committee, although made in consultation with Knowles and the Academic Deans, rested with Rudenstine.

According to Rudenstine, the case was reviewed by the Academic Deans group in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences who "concurred with the department's judgment concerning the extraordinary quality of the case and the need for a swift decision." He then decided to bypass the ad hoc committee and offer tenure to Myers.

Rudenstine said situation was especially urgent because Myers also had an offer from Caltech on the table.

The "senior appointment in the Chemistry Department was not `ad hoced' because the Department believed it was extremely important to move ahead rapidly if they were not to lose the person," Rudenstine said.

Despite the mystery of the tenure process, observers previously believed that the ad hoc step was essential to the tenure process and was never bypassed. But both Rudenstine and Knowles have acknowledged that the ad hoc has been skipped before.

"It has been done on rare occasions for decades, and it signals no change at all [in the tenure process]," Knowles said.

Many question the reasons for this departure from the norm and assert the need for a uniform tenure process.

"It would be useful especially for junior faculty morale, recruitment and retention if Harvard would articulate some rules and then play by them--consistently across departments," Masten said. "I'm always a believer in uniform treatment and due process."

Some however applauded Harvard's decision to bypass the ad hoc.

"If the candidate is super strong, if all concerned want him or her, if time is of the essence, then congratulations to the Harvard administration for moving fast to gain a star," said Charles Nesson, Weld professor of law.

Nesson acts as an advisor to Peter Berkowitz and had emerged as a strong advocate for unveiling the intricacies of the tenure process. Nesson used the Berkowitz tenure case in his Law School class "Evidence" this year.

He published the names of five scholars whom he believes served on the ad hoc committee which considered Berkowitz's tenure bid on a Web page for his winter-term class.

The membership of such committees is ordinarily kept secret by the University as a matter of policy and Knowles refused to comment on the names Nesson had posted, insisting on the confidentiality of the proceedings.

Nesson also continued to question another hotly-debated part of the tenure process: the composition of the ad hoc committee.

Nesson said the ad hoc committee needs to be "fairly composed of the most distinguished and appropriate and unbiased persons to advise the President." He argues that "the Berkowitz ad hoc was otherwise."

One member of a humanities department questioned whether any humanities case--unlike Myers' case--would ever be considered "definitive enough to dispense with an ad hoc committee."

Knowles said there is no difference in the tenure procedure for different disciplines.

"The tenure process is exactly the same across the humanities, social sciences and sciences," Knowles said.

Reversal of Fortune

Barro marked one of the more bizarre tenure issues this year. Barro, a tenured professor at Harvard, announced that he would accept a professorship at Columbia University. But shortly after this announcement, Barro reversed his decision and decided to remain at Harvard.

Barro turned down from Columbia a very lucrative offer. The package reportedly consisted of a $300,000-per-year salary, plus a $55,000 post for his wife and a place for his son in a Manhattan private school.

Harvard administrators said they did not "top" Columbia's offer. Instead they attributed Barro's flip-flop to a change of heart.

"We can't and we won't. As a matter of principle we won't," Rudenstine said. "The only way you can [do that] is to have what we've always refused to have: highly distributed Faculty [salaries]."

But some question whether the bidding wars will leave Harvard out in the cold in the future.

"It seems to be that you can't be the best university in the world or even compete with the best universities in the world if you're not willing to set aside resources to go after faculty like Robert Barro," said Jeffrey G. Williamson, chair of the economics department.