Jonah S. Siegel may be an Assistant Professor of English and American Literature and Language, but in assessing Harvard's tenure system he draws analogies from comparative religion.

"I think there have been almost as many popes in the last 30 years as there have been tenured Faculty in the English department," Siegel says, noting that only three Faculty members have been tenured in the English department since the 1970s.

Siegel's department is the site of at least three other junior Faculty departures this year. The economics and government departments also saw significant departures of assistant and associate professors. While some of these departing professors complain about Harvard's tenure system, others point to intense competition in the academic job market--especially the humanities--as the culprit.

This year the tenure issue was publicly debated through Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz's battle against his tenure denial, while junior Faculty filtered out more quietly in other departments. Several of these junior Faculty members have said the tenure process is ambiguous and has pushed them to seek more permanent positions at other universities.

An Imperfect Process?

Harvard's tenure process conforms to certain standards, but also has quirks that have earned it criticism. Almost uniformly across academia, professors are supposed to advance from assistant professor to associate professor, then, if granted tenure, full professors. "Senior professor" generally means a person is at the level of a full professor, even though an individual may not have a tenured seat, according to Marquand Professor of English Lawrence Buell, who chairs the department of English and American Literature and Language.

Bell Professor of Economics and Chair of the Department of Economics Jeffrey G. Williamson gives all junior Faculty members in his department a one-sided handout detailing "Department Procedures for Promotion to Associate and Full Professor." It gives the following explanation:

"For promotion to associate professor, the candidate is reviewed by a subcommittee of about three members of the senior Faculty appointed by the department chair. This assessment occurs after about three years."

"When sends a signal how good you are," Williamson says, referring to the time when a candidate is assessed. "There's a subtlety to the signal."

The subcommittee gathers information about the candidate from his or her dossier, from non-Harvard scholars and reports to the executive committee, which is comprised of tenured Faculty in the department.

After this meeting, executive committee members review the candidate's research, resume and teaching materials to prepare for a final debate and vote in a second meeting, about a week after the initial meeting. The candidate is aware of the process as it evolves and is told of his or her prospects for future promotion or tenure if awarded an associate professorship.

According Williamson, since almost all candidates are granted associate professorship, a significant aspect of the review is familiarizing the Executive Committee with the candidate to help in future considerations for advancement.

After this first level, Harvard faces the problem of fleeting junior Faculty--those who have left recently say the historically slim chances of gaining tenure from within Harvard drove them to seize other opportunities, many of which offer almost assured prospects for tenure.

According to Buell, the "somewhere else" that tempts junior Faculty from Harvard "would typically be somewhere that hires on the tenure track." That institution may even offer special, early consideration for tenure because the candidate spent time at Harvard.

"What's becoming clear is that it's dangerous to stay late at Harvard, so people are leaving earlier than the department or the administration would ideally like," Siegel says.