More Than a Year Later, Berkowitz Continues to Appeal Tenure Denial

Eighteen months after an ad hoc committee denied him tenure, Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz continues to protest the decision.

In a rare move, Berkowitz is requesting that all of Harvard's University professors be asked to advise the University on the overall tenure process and on his case specifically.

Berkowitz's appeal is likely to rekindle debates about the fairness of Harvard's tenure process. Last December, President Neil L. Rudenstine's tenure denial to another promising young professor, Jeffrey A. Masten, then Cowles Associate Professor in the Humanities, sparked a firestorm of complaints that the system often sends rising stars packing.

Berkowitz--who accepted a one-year extension of his current appointment last spring--is in the midst of appealing the decision through Rudenstine's office. He is still awaiting an answer from the Joint Committee on Appointments on a letter he wrote last May requesting a review of his case.

But he is not waiting passively for the Committee to respond. This summer, he shifted the focus of his grievance to Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles.

In an Aug. 27th letter to Knowles, Berkowitz explained his case and asked Knowles to consider his appeal because the Office of the Dean assembled the ad hoc committee that originally denied him tenure.

Secretary of the Faculty John B. Fox '59 responded to the letter by directing Berkowitz to a document titled "The Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances."

The guidelines are designed for cases which allege discrimination, as well as for Faculty members who "contend that proper procedures have not been followed in decisions regarding promotion or reappointment."

Berkowitz said he welcomes the chance to air his grievances in as many venues as possible--but he questioned the effectiveness of the appeals process.

"Each step in what might otherwise seem an arcane internal review process affords a new forum within Harvard in which to make our case and obtain a response to the hard questions we are asking," he said.

"We see no indication in the 'Guidelines' that the Dean's office is authorized to review Presidential decisions or provide remedies should those decisions be found to be compromised by faulty process," he wrote in an Oct. 14th letter to Fox.

Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson, an adviser to Berkowitz, also said he is not convinced that the guidelines will ensure a fair process, but agreed with Berkowitz that the chance to discuss the case is important.

"We welcome the opportunity to...persuade folks at all levels at Harvard of the need to reform the tenure review process and to redress the specific abuses in the case of Peter Berkowitz," he said.

Digging the Trenches

It could be a long fight. The "Guidelines for the Resolution of Faculty Grievances," written in 1983, spell out a four-step procedure for the Faculty member to follow.

The first step involves taking the concern before the department chair in hopes of a successful resolution. On Oct. 16, Berkowitz and Nesson met with Roderick B. MacFarquhar, chair of the government department, but were unable to resolve the dispute.

According to a letter written by Berkowitz and Nesson to MacFarquhar, they discussed the ad hoc committee's disregard of the government department's recommendations, the participation of Associate Provost and Professor of Government Dennis F. Thompson in the tenure process and MacFarquhar's power to resolve the grievance.

In the letter, Berkowitz and Nesson also asked MacFarquhar to support their proposal that "the collective group of Harvard's University professors be asked to advise the University after considering both the overall process in the Berkowitz tenure review and the merits of Peter Berkowitz's case for tenure."

Nesson and Berkowitz said they would only accept an unfavorable decision if it came from this body--not from the Office of the Dean.

"Yes, if it is favorable. No, if it is not," Nesson said. "We have suggested that the matter be put to a committee composed of all Harvard's University professors. We would accept the decision of this group, favorable or not."

In the letter to MacFarguahr, Berkowitz and Nesson said they will not back down.

"We do not wish to take anyone down, though we will continue to press for what we see as Veritas until we have received fair process," they wrote.

MacFarquhar responded with a letter reasserting his support for Berkowitz--but also stating that he is ultimately powerless to change the outcome.

"I--and my colleagues, too, I believe--adopt a `win some, lose some' attitude towards tenure decisions, whether taken within the department or at Presidential level," he wrote. "And while some decisions may be particularly hard to accept, one moves on."

Since the grievance was not resolved in the meeting with MacFarquhar, Berkowitz said he will undertake the next step recommended by the guidelines--a meeting with Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Carol J. Thompson.

If this meeting is also unsuccessful, the guidelines then recommend the filing of for- mal grievance to Knowles, explaining theprocedures that have been violated and giving "adetailed account of the circumstances and groundson which the grievance is based."

After Knowles receives this complaint, he isrequired to forward it to the elected members ofthe Docket Committee of the Faculty. According tothe guidelines, this group is empowered to dismissthe complaint if it is deemed to be without merit.

If the Docket Committee does not dismiss thecase, Knowles must form an ad hoc grievancepanel--composed of Faculty members who are either serving on the Faculty Council or have servedin the past five years.

According to the guidelines, the panel is tohave three members, chosen by the grievant, therelevant department chair and the DocketCommittee. The panel conducts an informal inquiryinto the matter and the grievant and respondentare entitled to be accompanied by a Facultyadviser when appearing before the committee.

The guidelines state that the panel is meant tohave an "atmosphere of collegiality" and not toserve as a court.

Berkowitz's case could founder because theguidelines also specify that "complaints should besubmitted within eight weeks of the action ordecision that is the subject of the grievance."His tenure denial occurred over 18 months ago.

Yet Berkowitz and Nesson continue to pressforward.

"Several of our letters to officials of theUniversity administration have gone entirelyunanswered," Berkowitz said. "Answers, when theycome, seem to strengthen our case.

After Knowles receives this complaint, he isrequired to forward it to the elected members ofthe Docket Committee of the Faculty. According tothe guidelines, this group is empowered to dismissthe complaint if it is deemed to be without merit.

If the Docket Committee does not dismiss thecase, Knowles must form an ad hoc grievancepanel--composed of Faculty members who are either serving on the Faculty Council or have servedin the past five years.

According to the guidelines, the panel is tohave three members, chosen by the grievant, therelevant department chair and the DocketCommittee. The panel conducts an informal inquiryinto the matter and the grievant and respondentare entitled to be accompanied by a Facultyadviser when appearing before the committee.

The guidelines state that the panel is meant tohave an "atmosphere of collegiality" and not toserve as a court.

Berkowitz's case could founder because theguidelines also specify that "complaints should besubmitted within eight weeks of the action ordecision that is the subject of the grievance."His tenure denial occurred over 18 months ago.

Yet Berkowitz and Nesson continue to pressforward.

"Several of our letters to officials of theUniversity administration have gone entirelyunanswered," Berkowitz said. "Answers, when theycome, seem to strengthen our case.