A Baffling Process

ONCE AGAIN, students and faculty express frustration as Harvard's gates shut out another young scholar. "Tenure Rejected," reads the inscription at the top, "seek ye employment elsewhere." And without further explanation, one more Harvard junior professor hits the road.

The history of Harvard tenure decisions, especially the most recent ones, defies coherent explanation. Since Dean of the Faculty A. Michael Spence announced a plan to increase the number of in-house promotions, three professors have been denied tenure this fall. As a matter of fact, less than 15 percent of Harvard's junior faculty receive tenure, and judging from last month's events the percentage is not growing.

Obviously, this low rate of promotion is a reflection of the administration's confidence in the quality of junior faculty scholarship. However, Dean Spence has expressed sentiments to the contrary. In an October '85 Crimson article, Spence said, "We want to make sure we have done everything we can to attract top-rate junior faculty, and we want to make the point to them that Harvard is a good place to start their academic careers." He must have been referring to academic careers at institutions other than Harvard.

That Harvard has attracted "top-rate junior faculty" is not a point of contention. Bradford Lee received the Levenson award for outstanding teaching. Alan Brinkley won the American Book Award for history in 1983. Robert Watson received unanimous endorsement for tenure from the English department. Each of these professors has offered courses among the most popular in the catalog. All were denied a senior position at Harvard.

Assuming Spence was correct in saying that Harvard strives to attract top notch junior faculty, what does refusing tenure to more than 75 percent of this group indicate? What does this say about our senior faculty?

Harvard supposedly grants tenure only to the best. An applicant for tenure must receive department approval, endorsement from an ad hoc committee of scholars in the field, and finally the signature of President Derek C. Bok. Presumably, the process guarantees that tenure is only granted to the best scholars.

But when President Bok overrides a unanimous endorsement from a department, as was the case with Watson, the purpose of the entire procedure is called into question. There is not a consistent set of standards for evaluating candidates for tenure. The result is confusion for students and faculty alike--not to mention the loss of teachers and scholars who have made an outstanding contribution to the community.

Students who have assumed that an informative and personable professor would offer courses next year are having to rethink their schedules. Junior and senior faculty who backed the nomination of a respected scholar are having to rearrange their departments. As it stands, Professor Watson spoke for many faculty when he said, "I just don't know what one is supposed to accomplish." Neither do the students.