Ghosts in the machine

"Ive been trying to finish a book for two years now, and I'm still struggling," says one assistant professor.

"I honestly don't care" about graduation requirements in the department, says another. "Harvard has made it clear that I'm not a long-term affiliate of theirs [so] I try not to get too involved in the life of the place."

"I don't necessarily think that [tenured faculty members] appreciate how much extra time I put in," says a third junior faculty member.

These are among the gripes surfacing in the University's recent survey of the condition of Harvard's junior faculty. The questionnaires, distributed several months ago, are just now being collated, but preliminary indications point to large numbers of assistant and associate professors who harbor bitter grievances about their workload, their relations with senior faculty, and their chances for tenure.

In fact, Harvard may have opened a can of worms that is smellier than it counted on. Officials deny that they have any intention of delaying the release of the results but one associate professor says. "Because of the results, they may not be interested in speeding it up." Dean K. Whitla, whose office handles many of the University's surveys and statistics, says the opposite is true, that "we are pushing more rapidly than usual."

In any case, the subject seems to be of primary interest to University administrators. From the Corporation on down, the plight of Harvard's junior faculty is a hot topic. Senior fellow Hugh Calkins '45 says the Corporation's Appointments Committee, which includes President Bok, wants to see a higher percentage of tenured positions filled from within.

"President Bok has been very interested in attempts to increase the proportion of senior faculty that are made by promotion within the faculty," adds Sidney Verba '53, associate dean of the faculty for undergraduate education, "but I don't think there has been any change in faculty motions or procedures."

Most other American universities have a tenure track, where junior faculty members routinely get promoted to senior positions, but Harvard has traditionally staffed the senior levels with big names from other schools. Fewer than one in every 10 Harvard junior faculty members gets tenure here.

And Henry Rosovsky, outgoing dean of the Faculty, does not foresee any big alterations in the system: "I don't think there can be any changes because the problem is tenure. You can't give people tenure after their first job. Perhaps there are two reasons they are not selected: one may be their qualifications and the other that their particular skills may not be the ones needed at this time."

These bleak tenure possibilities provoked much of the tension junior faculty members report. Assistant professors are usually hired for five years; if they get promoted to associate, they get another three years or so. Then it's up or out--usually out. "The utter lack of long-term prospects is disappointing, and I think it's bad for morale," says one assistant professor contacted last month in a brief Crimson survey of junior faculty sentiment.

The junior faculty most satisfied with their experience at Harvard seem to be those most reconciled with the transitory nature of the position. "It's actually easier," says one young scientist who feels he has little chance for tenure here. "There's nothing hanging over my head...I can do things to promote my career and take advantage of the resources here."

"It's much healthier not to allow oneself to hope for tenure," says one language teacher. "You run into an awful lot of ex-Harvard assistant professors who are extraordinarily bitter about the place," adds another scientist. For example, one associate professor recently denied tenure said last week that he didn't feel like bothering to answer the University Hall questionnaire: "I told them to go soak their heads."

The lack of tenure prospects may be hurting Harvard's ability to hire junior faculty, according to some non-tenured professors contacted. "If I had kids, I wouldn't be here," says one. "Some of the best junior faculty prospects don't come to Harvard because there's no chance of progressing" says another.

Despite the slim odds, some junior faculty members still hold out hope for tenure. One social scientist says. "I don't think people have adjusted yet" to the fact that "it's not a security-oriented position." The "assumption of forward motion," he adds, still holds in many minds.

Several junior faculty members have developed theories about how to get tenure at Harvard. One says personal acquaintances are all-important--"The evaluation that they make is very superficial from an academic point of view." Others say that good "citizenship" in the department counts for something--helping out by doing administrative chores or teaching the large, unwieldy introductory courses.

But the major criterion for tenure--some would say the only criterion--is the publishing. Writing a great book might get you tenured, several junior professors say, but being a great teacher or a great departmental "citizen" won't. "This is a research institution. That's the bottom line," says one social scientist.

Junior faculty surveyed split on whether this emphasis was a good thing. On the one hand, says one assistant professor, "The person who is just a good teacher may not appeal to the next generation down the road," while a good researcher is more likely to keep abreast of developments in the field.

On the other hand, junior professors say they have little incentive to teach well or to take on administrative duties. Says one scientist: "I have very little incentive except my own desire to look good before the class." A colleague concurs, saying, "I hate to stand up there and look like a jerk...even though it doesn't count."

But while research and writing are what count in promotional considerations, many junior professors say they are not given enough time for such pursuits. In some departments, junior faculty must teach more classes than their senior colleagues.

Unwieldy introductory classes and administrative duties are often thrown in the laps of the junior professors in many departments. And often the same people end up with both burdens--this point was reportedly raised amidst much nodding of heads at the last meeting of the departmental head tutors.

Robert Putnam, incoming chairman of the Government Department, says the conflict of research and other duties is not reserved for junior faculty. "All of us have situations where we have to write a lecture for the next morning," he says. "At every major university, you are expected to do a good job of teaching and research."

But many junior faculty members say they feel the crunch more critically. The Crimson survey of junior faculty found that they spend on average only 30 percent of their working school-year time on research and writing, compared to 50 percent on teaching and 20 percent on administrative duties. "I need to publish more or I'm not going to get promoted," says one social scientist.

Another major gripe coming from the junior ranks is the distance they feel from the tenured faculty. The extreme view is that they are treated as hired help, brought in to teach a certain number of courses for a certain number of years. One social scientist says there is a rumor that "the senior faculty in History take pride in not knowing the names of the junior faculty members." In the Government Department, "the majority of the tenured faculty members just don't give a damn about the junior faculty members. They feel life was created for them, at least at Harvard," says another social scientist.

"There is a chilly atmosphere for junior faculty, which is hard to pin down," says an assistant professor. Subtle things like "who is called by a first name by the secretaries" create this atmosphere, she adds.

This alienation may be a function of department size--in the smaller departments, junior faculty seem to feel more integrated. In one small department, an assistant professor says, "I don't feel like a junior faculty member at all." "At the margins, departments can do things to improve...the climate and relations between junior and senior faculty," says Putnam, who adds that this is going to be one of his highest priorities as chairman in Government. Besides, says History Department Chairman John Womack Jr. '59, the distance across the tenure line hasn't gotten worse in the last 15 years: "I don't think it's any more the case now than when I was a junior faculty member...We don't in this department make a great deal out of socializing." But on the other hand, says one junior linguist, socializing helps. The senior faculty "really made an effort to make me feel comfortable by having me to lunch and to dinner...Perhaps if all the departments did that there would be fewer unhappy junior faculty members around."

The department's personality seems to make a great difference in the condition of the junior faculty in a number of ways. First, the promotion from assistant to associate professor has become, in several departments, like a "second tenure." It is disputable whether such promotions used to be routine--some senior professors say yes, and some no--but in the social sciences, primarily, promotion is definitely not automatic. "In eight years you can get a fair amount done," says one social scientist, adding, "But if you might have to look for work in your fifth year, that's different." "You can't coast at all," adds another assistant professor. "You can't really relax."

In the natural sciences other problems emerge. The feeling of alienation is particularly galling, professors say, because different research groups have little contact. Such atomization "doesn't foster any interaction between faculty members at any level," says one junior scientist. The best way to find out what's happening next door, says another, is to talk to friends at other universities.

Another difference between departments is the job market. Overall, academia has become in the last few years a "buyer's market," with too few positions for too many scholars. But the situation varies by field. In the humanities and languages--south of the Yard, as Whitla says--young teachers are reportedly hardest off. "I was very pleased to get this job," says one assistant professor. "I had trouble finding a job...I try to operate in a way that will make it easier for me to find another job."

In the social sciences the job market is a little better. Harvard "is a good place from which to seek your second job," says one social scientist. The Economics Department in particular, but also the Government Department, has recently sent junior faculty to tenured positions at prestigious universities around the country, says Economics Department chairman and incoming Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence.

In the natural sciences, the job market seems ambiguous for Harvard junior faculty. "Being an ex-Harvard professor is not as important an entree as it used to be," says one scientist. "As people get out of Harvard, there just aren't positions available." But others disagree. "I don't know of anybody who left here and didn't get a good job," says another junior scientist. A third scientist points out that "you find it easier to get the attention of your colleagues across the country if you are speaking from a podium with the Harvard name on it."

Another major source of complaints among junior faculty is the financial aspect. Salaries have risen the last several years, making up for the lack of increases during the highly inflationary late '70s, when the University tried to economize by keeping salaries down. But the common perception seems to be that junior faculty feel underpaid. "I don't care how many surveys [Dean of the Faculty Henry] Rosovsky wants to from out, it's just not true" that Harvard salaries match those elsewhere, says one junior professor.

"The senior salaries are among the very best in the country," says an assistant professor in the humanities, while the junior salaries are just middling. More specifically, an associate professor adds, in that category in particular "Harvard comes up real short."

But the University has acknowledged this shortcoming. Spence, for instance, says, "We are rarely the highest-paying institution." But there are a number of non-salary financial handicaps with which junior faculty must struggle. Subsidized housing was a repeated request in. The Crimson's poll. "Housing in Cambridge is outrageous," says one. Some rents, she adds "are about as much as a first-year junior professor takes home."

Harvard ought to pay junior faculty moving expenses, says another assistant professor "the only university I know of that doesn't is Harvard." Mortgages ought to be made available to junior faculty, according to one assistant professor, who was told by the Harvard Credit Union that "we only start giving out loans for people who get such-and-such a salary from Harvard, which I happened to know that year was the minimum salary for a full professor."

Even such picayune matters as secretarial help were mentioned several times. "In addition to teaching one more course each year [than senior faculty in the department] and having to publish, we also have to type up our own letters and course materials and do our own xeroxing," says a junior language teacher.

Harvard offers junior faculty a full semester of paid leave, a feature a couple of those polled praised. But according to one assistant professor. "The leave they give you is rather small. Many other universities would give you two periods of two years."

Another ambiguous feature is "seed money" and other Harvard research funding--some junior professors apparently have no trouble getting these dollars, and others seem to have nothing but trouble.

With all these grievances and gripes, why do junior faculty members come to and stay at Harvard? Some of them seem to feel trapped--they don't particularly want to stay, but they can't get a good job elsewhere until they've been here for seven or eight years. Most of the junior professors polled, though, say that the benefits of the Harvard community outweigh or at least balance the drawbacks--they speak constantly of the resources here, in terms of students, colleagues, libraries, laboratories and prestige.

"I wouldn't go to Ohio State, where they pay more, but it's not so exciting academically," says a social scientist. In an absolute sense, Harvard could use some improvement, adds another, but in a relative it is better than most.

And many junior faculty sound optimistic about