The recent court ruling against the University in the suit brought by former Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz may finally force Harvard to open its tenure process to public scrutiny.

The tenure process is one of the most mysterious practices of a secretive and complex University. Tenure decisions ultimately rest with President Neil L. Rudenstine, who is often (but not always) advised by a five-member "ad hoc" committee chaired by Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles. This anonymous group of scholars reviews candidates like Berkowitz who have been recommended by their departments for tenure. The committee can wield an enormous amount of power--in some cases, its recommendation can have more influence than the candidate's senior departmental colleagues. Yet the committee's votes are not recorded and explanations are not given for its decisions.

Because of this excessive secrecy, the committee is not accountable for its actions to anyone other than Rudenstine. As a result, there are often accusations of conflicts of interest and unfairness that echo behind the scenes long after a tenure decision has been made. Berkowitz, who was denied tenure despite a strong record as a teacher and a positive recommendation from his department, has accused Harvard of failing to follow its own policies in hearing his complaints. The Jan. 4 ruling allowing the case to go forward may cause documents surrounding the tenure decision to be made public as part of the discovery process.

A more transparent system would help avoid these disputes. The mere fact that the process is so compartmentalized fosters allegations of wrongdoing. Professors who are denied tenure find it easy to point fingers at a faceless, possibly stacked committee; accountability would reduce the acrimony that accompanies the tenure process. With a truly open process, junior faculty would feel that they are getting a legitimate shot to achieve tenure.

In addition, specific criteria should be established for the evaluation of junior faculty members to tenure positions. This would force the ad hoc committee to justify its decisions based on objective standards. Currently, a new professor must be the "leading scholar/teacher in the field," a superlatively vague requirement that allows an ad hoc committee to make any decision it wants for any reason it wants--without requiring that its reasons ever be revealed.

Also, in a more open system, students would have a greater opportunity to affect a process in which they currently have no voice. Junior faculty are too often judged exclusively on their published work; associate professors who are first and foremost excellent and accessible teachers are rarely granted tenure. While this fosters a large amount of scholarship, it hurts undergraduate education--the best researchers are not always the best teachers. Public standards of judging tenure candidates would enable public debate on what those standards should be.

We hope that this court decision will not only expose some of the records of the Berkowitz tenure decision, but also spur the University to open its tenure process to avoid similar problems in the future.