This April, tenure observers were shocked when Harvard skipped the ad hoc step of the tenure process to secure California Institute of Technology's Andrew Myers for the chemistry and chemical biology department. Harvard's ad hoc committee had appeared to be an intractable part of the tenure system. But, citing the outstanding nature of the Myers case and time constraints, Harvard bypassed the ad hoc.

The Myers case is reminiscent of an earlier time when departments had a greater influence over the tenure process. In the Myers case, the president and dean acted on the recommendation of the department, with some external review by the academic deans, and did not rely on the opinions of outside scholars.

Critics of the process say the case illustrates the inconsistencies of the tenure process.

And senior officials admit as much. "The recent senior appointment in the chemistry department was not `ad hoc-ed' because the department believed it was extremely important to move ahead rapidly if we were not to lose the person," Rudenstine says.

Furthermore, both Knowles and Rudenstine say the Myers case was not the first to bypass the ad hoc committee.

"This procedure, though extremely rare, was not precedent-setting," Rudenstine says. It has occurred once before during Rudenstine's seven years as president, as well as rarely before Rudenstine's time here.

Many professors believe that, despite Knowles' comments to the contrary, it is easier for outside Faculty to receive tenure.

"It's hard to imagine that Harvard would forego convening an ad hoc committee in a consideration of [inside] tenure, even when under pressure to make a quick decision," Masten says.

The Tenure Mystique

In addition to what some perceive as the arbitrariness of actual tenure decisions, junior Faculty members also complain that a complete lack of information pervades the entire process.

Earlier this year, the dean's office sent out a letter outlining the standard tenure procedures within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) to department chairs, with a note attached suggesting that chairs "distribute it as you see fit, but I urge you especially to make it available to your junior Faculty members."

The letter provides the bare bones of the process, leaving junior Faculty scrambling to try to obtain additional information from friends among the senior Faculty.

But considering that only 21 percent of junior Faculty will receive tenure offers from Harvard, senior Faculty often have little reason to mentor them.

"It's not necessarily something intentional on their part, but because junior Faculty don't have the possibility of being permanent colleagues, there isn't a structural incentive for senior Faculty to spend a lot of extra time with us," says Shannon Jackson, an assistant professor in English and literature who will be departing for Berkeley in the fall.

In addition to those informal channels, theonly other information junior professors receiveregarding the likelihood of tenure is oneindeterminate letter at the time of theirpromotion from assistant to associate professor.

This letter, sent by the chair of thedepartment, serves as both a progress report andan indication of the possibility of a future atHarvard.