The elected members, in dismissing Berkowitz's grievance, rejected his principal charges against the University. His complaint centered on allegations that his tenure review was contaminated both by the ad hoc committee of scholars convened to assess him and by the intervention of Associate Provost Dennis F. Thompson, a member of Berkowitz's department and a University official.

Berkowitz has written a reply to the Docket Committee. In this latest missive, which Berkowitz said he planned to send today, he challenged the authority of the elected members to engage in a lengthy investigation.

Berkowitz's response contains citations from the FAS Guidelines, which authorize the committee only to conduct a "preliminary screening" of a formal grievance filing like the one he submitted in January.

"I would have thought that an inquiry of nearly five months, which involved consultation with outside legal counsel; the examination of several witnesses; an extensive review of Harvard rules; and a hearing in which I responded to questions from the elected members for more than an hour and a half would together establish that my grievances could by definition not be clearly without merit," Berkowitz wrote.

Berkowitz claimed in his grievance that four of the five professors who served on his ad hoc committee "showed bias, conflict of interest, or lack of relevant expertise."

Harvard's tenure procedures dictate that an ad hoc committee be formed after a candidate has received his or her department's recommendation.

According to University rules, Rudenstine, as president, is free to disregard the advice of either or both the relevant department and the ad hoc committee in making his decision about tenure.

Endorsed by the Department of Government, Berkowitz did not receive the backing of a majority of the ad hoc committee members.