The many intricate steps of Harvard's tenure process make for many chances for an unfair hearing, Faculty say.

While President Neil L. Rudenstine says "every junior Faculty members feels that they're getting a fair hearing," the junior professors themselves often do not agree.

The recommendations of senior Faculty members, often those with the most information about the needs of the department and the candidate under review, are disregarded 15 percent of the time by a one person decision-making body--Rudenstine.

Rudenstine receives additional advice, of course, from Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles and a committee comprised mostly of outside experts, but some say that the Harvard tenure process centralizes power in a way that can be arbitrary.

"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," says Cowles Associate Professor in the Humanities Jeffrey Masten, who was denied tenure despite strong departmental support in a controversial case earlier this year.

The composition of the ad hoc committee, a group of five people convened to advise the president about a tenure candidate's scholarly work, has also come under increased fire in recent years, as at least one Faculty member who was refused tenure has publicly claimed--backed by a senior professor--that this body was stacked unfairly against his candidacy.

Critics charge that Harvard's tenure process does not guarantee a fair hearing: department's opinions do not always carry much weight, the ad hoc committee can be biased and the final decision is made by someone who is often far from an expert in the tenure candidate's field.

Not only that, but junior Faculty members are often kept in the dark about the details of their tenure cases and why they are denied tenure.

"At Harvard there's a mystique about many things--and this is just one of [them]," says Associate Professor of Astronomy Alyssa A. Goodman.

Departmental Power

Compared to other universities, departments have a limited role in the Harvard tenure process.

Essentially, the department chair initiates the process, and after approval by the Dean of the Faculty, sends a letter to leading scholars asking for their evaluation of the candidate. After reviewing these letters, senior Faculty in the department vote on whether to support the nomination and write letters explaining their views in full.

But this is the extent of Faculty involvement; the final decision is left to Rudenstine with input from Knowles and the ad hoc committee.

This differs from the tenure process of many schools, professors say, where the department's recommendation can make or break a candidate.

"I have very little role as to the outcome....There is no way a chair, even if she or he wanted to, could significantly alter the course of events," says Leo Damrosch, chair of the English department.

Despite the careful scrutiny within the department, 15 percent of the cases that go before the ad hoc committee--that is, cases endorsed by the department--still do not result in a tenure offer.

"[The department] can recommend someone for tenure, but, as we saw in the Masten case, it cannot possibly predict how likely the person is actually to get tenure," says Damrosch, who is also Bernbaum professor of literature.

Masten was the first junior professor in seven years to be recommended by the English department for tenure.

An `Expert' President

But with all the "expert" opinions in the process, the final decision is up to someone who is often nowhere near an expert in a given field: Rudenstine.

Rudenstine's many responsibilities for each tenure case include sitting on the ad hoc committee, reviewing the entire tenure dossier and making the final decision.

Rudenstine has these powers because Harvard--unlike other universities where many promotions occur from within and jobs are tenuretrack--requires all of its appointees to be judged "the leading scholar/teacher available in the field."

Rudenstine says he reviews each case "with the same kind of care and comes to a conclusion based on all the evidence and all the testimony and [his] own evaluation of what [he sees]."

But some have asked whether Rudenstine, a Renaissance poetry scholar, is qualified to determine whether a Turoyo language expert, an automorphic forms and number theory researcher, or a neuromodulation specialist not only "exceeds a certain threshold," but is no less than "the leading scholar/teacher available in the field."

Furthermore, the step of the ad hoc committee, intended to provide "expert" evaluation of the candidate's scholarly work, may have little marked effect in the end.

The ad hoc members do not always reach a consensus, for Knowles says the committee is almost always made up of some supporters and some detractors of the candidate. Since the committee does not vote, there is often no clear indication as to how the president should decide.

Critics also say that a formal document should exist--none does now--that would explain how much influence the ad hoc is supposed to have.

As is, Rudenstine is left with no guidelines to use in reading dossiers--comprised of 100 to 200 pages of recommendations and journal articles plus the candidate's books--for the more than 30 cases each year, as estimated by Knowles.

Of course, selecting Faculty members is only one aspect of any president's job, as much time is consumed in fundraising.

Rudenstine, in particular, was selected by the Harvard Corporation in large part because of his fundraising potential, and he has proven very successful, raising 87 percent of the Capital Campaign's $2.1 billion goal over the past four years.

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.

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.

The existence of this letter--the one tangiblesource of information for junior faculty abouttheir chances--is almost universally praised bysenior and junior Faculty members alike.

"[The letter] was an important reform someyears back, intended to serve the best interestsof the junior Faculty members," says Damrosch."They have a right to know--and to be told inwriting--whether or not their senior colleaguesthink they will have a chance to be recommendedfor tenure later on," Damrosch adds.

"[The letter is] important because it [givesyou] the information derived from the review--youget feedback on the quality and strengths andweaknesses of your own work," says AssociateProfessor of Government Lawrence J. Broe."Included in the letter is what you would need todo to get tenure at Harvard, so you can plan yourlife accordingly."

Damrosch says the letter gives junior facultyan idea about what the future holds.

"In the old days, they sometimes got verymisleading impressions from a few enthusiasticpatrons, and were shocked to find out that thedepartment as a whole had never expected toconsider them for tenure," Damrosch says.

But despite the letter's usefulness, it isstill only a rough indicator of future jobprospects.

"Nobody ever gets an indication that thechances [of getting tenure] are excellent; peopledo get indications that the chances are zero,"Goodman says. "Everybody is always very vague."

The Costs of the Process

While it is the low rate of internal tenure,not the arbitrariness of the process, thatgenerally drives talented junior faculty membersto accept offers from other institutions beforetheir Harvard contracts expire, many professorssay the shrouded and sometimes arbitrary Harvardprocess breeds unnecessary resentment.

Goodman laments the absolute lack ofinformation in the process.

"They don't tell you who is on the ad hoccommittee, they don't tell you [whether or not]the senior faculty [are] unanimous" in theirsupport, she says.

"It's a crapshoot," she adds