The Crimson's requests for an explanation ofFox's directive did not elicit a response fromUniversity officials.

Berkowitz proceeded by writing to DeanThompson. His Nov. 9 letter, which outlined hiscomplaint was also sent to Knowles.

In her Nov. 17 response, Thompson denied havinghad anything to do with Berkowitz's tenure reviewand stated that she had recused herself from theappeal.

Two days later, Berkowitz received a letterfrom Knowles, indicating that the dean had foundevidence of "some misunderstanding" in Berkowitz'sstatements about his tenure review.

Berkowitz wrote back on Nov. 25, asserting thathe was not in any way mistaken and that his claimswere in no way misinformed.

On Dec. 2, Berkowitz notified Knowles of hisintent to file a formal grievance, in accordancewith phase 3 of the Guidelines.

The grievance was submitted Jan. 6 to Knowles,the chair ex officio of the Docket Committee.

The next day, Knowles passed the complaint onto the elected members of the DocketCommittee-Professor of Economics David M. Cutler'87, Richards Professor of Chemistry Cynthia M.Friend and Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematicsand Mathematical Logic Warren D. Goldfarb '69-whomthe Guidelines charged with determining whether ornot the grievance was "clearly without merit."

During the nearly five-month period the electedmembers took to deliberate over Berkowitz'scomplaint, both he and Nesson wrote to the DocketCommittee several times, expressing their desireto appear before it.

The elected members arranged to meet withBerkowitz on May 5. Prior to the meeting, Foxnotified Berkowitz that he could not bring Nesson.

Fox's letter stated that if Berkowitz wanted tohave an advocate accompany him, the advocate wouldhave to come from within FAS.

Mindful of this restriction, Berkowitz askedButtenwieser University Professor Stanley H.Hoffmann to join him at the May 5 gathering.

Though Hoffmann left after an hour, Berkowitz'smeeting with the elected members lasted for overan hour and a half. He describes it as a "lengthygrill session," during which he fielded legalisticquestions from Cutler, Friend and Goldfarb.

The elected members' letter of May 28, whichinforms Berkowitz that they have found hisgrievance to be "clearly without merit," indicatesthat the May 5 session was "very helpful."

"The purpose of our meeting with you was togive you time to explain to us the points youwanted us to consider and to give us theopportunity to talk with you about the facts andissues we were weighing as we moved toward adecision," the elected members write.