While no one doubts Rudenstine's credentials in Renaissance poetry, some have questioned the practice of giving so much power in selecting Faculty to a man chosen primarily for his ability to raise money.

"Part of the reason that I'm leaving is because...I didn't know...how they would come to know my work in a way that I would feel comfortable having them evaluate it," says one junior Faculty member who is leaving Harvard before coming up for up for tenure review.

The Berkowitz Debate

One professor who has publicly raised the issue of the arbitrariness of the tenure process is Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz, who was denied tenure in April 1997. Since then, he has raised concerns about the fairness of the ad hoc committee, the body that works more closely with the president than the candidate's department.

Charles R. Nesson '60, Weld professor of law, has been an outspoken critic of Berkowitz's ad hoc committee and his subsequent denial of tenure.

The Berkowitz ad hoc was aberrant in its structure. An ad hoc usually consists of two members from within Harvard and three from outside, but Berkowitz's ad hoc consisted of four members from outside Harvard and only one from within.

Knowles says while he cannot comment on individual cases, sometimes the proportions of the ad hoc can vary in order to provide the most knowledgeable experts to advise the president.

"It is essential for there not only to be an ad hoc, but also for the ad hoc to be fairly composed of the most distinguished and appropriate and unbiased persons to advise the president," Nesson says. "The Berkowitz ad hoc was otherwise."

In a letter week to the Joint Committee on Appointments, Nesson accuses the Berkowitz ad hoc committee of lacking "diversity and variety of perspectives," arguing that all but one of the members of the Berkowitz ad hoc were either far from Berkowitz's neo-conservative positions ideologically, or were not the "experts in the field" outlined in the dean's letter.

He also accuses certain members of the committee of having "both a personal and departmental stake in opposing Berkowitz."

Furthermore, Nesson charges that Dennis Thompson, a professor in the government department and the University's Associate Provost, "impaired the integrity of the procedure" when writing a Faculty letter and should have recused himself from involvement in a tenure case within his department because of his dual role as professor and provost.

But Thompson says he was simply exercising his rights as a department member.

"My actions in this case were limited to the role I played as a member of the government department as a part of the departmental discussion," Thompson says. "I wrote a customary letter to the dean. I don't normally have any other role in the FAS tenure decision and I did not do anything other, in this case either."

Bypassing the System

The fairness of the ad hoc is usually one of the most essential components of a just review, but sometimes it is skipped entirely.