This semester is likely the last opportunity Harvard students will have to benefit from the instruction of Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz. In the spring of 1997, after a highly suspect proceeding, Berkowitz was denied tenure, despite having earned the recommendation of his department.

Evidence of procedural improprieties on the part of the University has led Berkowitz to protest the manner in which his tenure case was reviewed. Joined by Weld Professor of Law Charles Nesson, Berkowitz has appealed the decision. In accordance with the University's "Procedures for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," he has filed a formal complaint and is currently awaiting word from an elected faculty Docket Committee charged with assessing the merits of his grievance.

While we would like to believe Berkowitz's just cause will prevail, realism checks our optimism. Once again, it seems, the tenure system will short-change both a talented scholar and this University's student-body.

Berkowitz is a brilliant professor of political philosophy who offers a unique perspective on his field of study. He is the only instructor at this school who has offered courses which provide a critical perspective on postmodernist theory. The name of Michel Foucault abounds on syllabi across the College and is universally lauded by our faculty as a brilliant scholar. Students seeking a second opinion would have nowhere to go if it were not for the free-thinking Berkowitz. Those seeking an example of the importance of ideological diversity need look no further.

Berkowitz is helpful and accessible to undergraduates. Over the years he has consistently scored high on the CUE guide ratings, and many of us have had the great privilege of learning from him. He is always well-prepared, entertaining and enlightening. He gives lucid lectures drawing from a variety of fields, including religion and literature.

Of course, none of this is of much importance to members of the Administration, who have denied Berkowitz tenure under questionable circumstances and stonewalled his process of appeal. The tenure process has always neglected the teaching qualifications of candidates and has always been shrouded in disconcerting secrecy. This staff has called for its reform on too many occasions to count. So, why reiterate our distress?

Because the case of Berkowitz is particularly egregious. Here is a clear case where the students of this College stand to lose one of their most valued instructors as the result of a deeply flawed process, about which they know little, and over which they have absolutely no control. This is not the first such instance. However, in this case, the other victim, the instructor himself, has bravely decided to stand up to the corrupt system. He has little chance of victory, and he has exposed himself to great ridicule, but he has decided to fight for what is right.

The Administration, specifically the Docket Committee of the Faculty, should take note that the students of this College are firmly behind Professor Berkowitz. The tenure process has already harmed too many. There is no better time and no better candidate on whose behalf to finally undertake its long overdue reform.