To Berkowitz's charge that his ad hoc committee was poorly constituted, the Docket Committee responded with a counter-charge, suggesting Berkowitz misinterpreted the Appointment Handbook's guidelines for convening an ad hoc committee.

In their letter to Berkowitz, which he provided to The Crimson, the Docket Committee imputed to Berkowitz the belief that he was entitled to an ad hoc committee of specialists in his particular field--the history of political philosophy. The elected members then suggested that this was a faulty expectation.

Citing Berkowitz's reference to

"recognized experts" in his complaint, the elected members wrote they could find no "requirement that any member of an ad hoc tenure review committee, much less the committee as a whole, be expert in the narrow subject-matter areas of the tenure candidate."

Berkowitz, in his retort, denied the premise of the Docket Committee's argument. He said he never asserted that Harvard policy required the formation of an ad hoc committee of scholars whose specialties exactly matched his own.

"Professor Friend's letter puts in my mouth, and then proceeds to refute, a claim nowhere found in my formal grievance," Berkowitz said.

Friend, the official spokesperson for the elected members, refused to elaborate further on the decision.