Tenure Process Debated

Bradley S. Epps, Loeb Associate Professor of the Humanities, shared a bottle of champagne with his class last week to celebrate his tenure appointment in Romance Languages and Literatures.

In an interview, the 39-year-old professor said "the proof is in the pudding" that Harvard's oft-criticized tenure process is changing.

Epps' case was one of several this year that ended happily. But many promising, well-liked young scholars are denied tenure every year, including Jeffrey A. Masten, Gardner Cowles Associate Professor in the Humanities.

In December, President Neil L. Rudenstine refused to grant tenure to Masten, whose promotion the English department had enthusiastically supported. Graduate students, undergraduates and Masten's colleagues here and at other universities expressed shock and outrage.

In a January letter printed in The Crimson, Phillip Brian Harper, associate professor of English at New York University, called the University's tenure procedures "anomalous and increasingly laughable."

Unlike most universities, Harvard is not a tenure-track institution. It has historically proved next-to-impossible for anassistant professor to receive tenure at Harvard.

Many junior faculty members complain thestringent tenure process provides disincentives toteach here, and some department chairs concede ithampers their recruitment efforts. They alsoobject to the secrecy which shrouds the process.

"It's important for hiring of junior facultythat people feel that they have some kind ofshot," says Professor of History Susan G.Pedersen, who chairs the Faculty's StandingCommittee on the Status of Women.

But Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles saysemphatically that the system does not need to bechanged simply because junior faculty are rarelypromoted.

The University's main goal, he says, must be toprovide support to junior faculty, so that theyhave "the best chance of a career opportunity hereor elsewhere."

According to Knowles' annual budget letter tothe Faculty, more than 40 percent of tenuredappointments have come from internal promotions inthe last three years, compared with under 30percent in the previous three-year period.

Still, Pedersen is not alone in saying "It'stime for the University to look at thisseriously."

A Unique System

Harvard's tenure process is unique in manyways.

Before appointing a scholar to tenure, mostuniversities, such as the University of Californiaat Berkeley, seek to determine that the nominee'squalifications meet their institutionalrequirements.

By contrast, a person considered for tenure atHarvard must be judged to be the leading scholaravailable in a particular field.

"When you're hired at Berkeley, if you meet thestandards for tenure at Berkeley, you have aposition," says Patti L. Owen, manager of academicpersonnel at Berkeley. "You're hired into aposition with the expectation that you will gettenure."

Sixty-seven percent of the tenured faculty atBerkeley come from internal promotions. AtHarvard, that number is between 35 and 40 percent.

To identify the best available person, Harvardplaces tenure candidates on an unranked "shortlist" of about five leading scholars, usually at acomparable stage in their careers.

Candidates on the short list are typicallyinvited to Harvard to give a lecture or adepartmental seminar, and to respond to questions.Later, leading outside scholars are asked toevaluate the candidates on the short list, bothabsolutely and comparatively.

Unlike at other institutions, the letterrequesting outside evaluations is "blind" becauseit does not indicate if a particular individual onthe list is actually under serious consideration.It simply asks respondents to evaluate all of theindividuals on the list.

The major difference between Harvard and otherinstitutions is that while other universities,such as Princeton, use the outside evaluationssimply as a measuring stick, Harvard my actuallyoffer tenure to an outside scholar who appears inseveral blind letter responses, rather than itsown internal candidate.

"Every case for promotion of a junior facultymembers is considered on its own merits," saysKatherine T. Rohrer, associate dean of faculty atPrinceton.

Harvard is also unusual because it forms an adhoc committee of experts both from within Harvardand from other universities meets to adviseRudenstine about the particular tenurerecommendation.

At Princeton, by contrast, the same committeeevaluates all tenure cases, creating "realcontinuity from decision to decision," Rohrersays.

Princeton does not release statistics on thepercentage of tenured faculty who came frominternal promotions, but it is often considered tobe as difficult to receive tenure there as atHarvard.

"People realize that the odds are againstgaining tenure at Princeton," Rohrer says. "At thesame time, I hope that our junior faculty membersrealize that being in a place likePrinceton...offers a higher level of opportunityand resources than being a junior faculty memberat a place where tenure is easier to get."

Shortchanged?

But critics of Harvard's system say reasonablechances of promotion are necessary in addition togood resources.

Henry S. Rosovsky, former dean of the Faculty,once made a statement that recent tenure denialssuch as Masten's seem to disprove.

"The undergraduates are here for four years,the faculty is here for life, and the institutionis here forever," Rosovsky said.

But many faculty criticize Harvard for causinginstability by rarely promoting its own juniorfaculty to tenured positions.

Critics of the tenure process often note thehigh rate of turnover among junior faculty indepartment such as English.

Harvard departments review untenured faculty inthe seventh year of an eight-year contract, butsome junior faculty choose to leave before theirchances for promotion are so slim.

"Some of our really wonderful people have leftearly to some other department [with a more securetenure track]," says Leo Damrosch, chair of theEnglish department. "We've got to say it's therational thing to do,"

Calling Harvard's tenure process "antiquated,"William M. Losick, chair of the biologydepartment, says junior faculty should not beexpected to stand out as the leading scholars intheir fields after seven years.

"The problem is that it's hard at Harvard for ajunior faculty to accomplish enough so that theycan measure up in an international evaluation inthe blind letter in the number of years they'rehere," Losick says.

Kenneth A. Shepsle, chair of the Governmentdepartment, says the University's tenure processhas a positive effect on education because itmeans that "Harvard undergraduate are taught byonly the best senior faculty in each field."

But some undergraduates and graduates studentssay the high rate of turn-over caused by thetenure process may have negative consequences foreducation here.

"As a student, if you invest your time tryingto work with a particular person very closely,knowing that that person might leave or is in thejob market is a great disadvantage for you,especially if you're thinking about having themadvise you your senior year," says Mare R. Talusan'97, who was Masten's senior thesis advisee lastyear.

"So many of the departments here have what theycall 'stars,' who don't really do a lot ofteaching because they devote their time toresearch," he adds.

Scott L. Newstrom, a third-year graduatestudent in English, says he was discouraged fromrequesting Masten as his advisor because it wasunlikely that the junior professor would be atHarvard long enough to guide Newstrom through hisdissertation.

Epps says he himself refused to directdissertations for the same reason.

"I wasn't sure where I would be, hence I didn'tthink it was in the best interest for the graduatestudent," he says.

He adds, however, that he was "always committedto education," despite the fact that he wasanxious about finding another job if he did notreceive tenure here.

Epps' main concern is that the process is"couched in a great deal of mystery and secrecy."

"When you're dealing with important aspects ofpeople's lives, a bit more information would be agood think," he says. "The entire final part ofthe procedures could have almost been aboutsomeone else."

Pedersen also says there is a "lack of clarity"in the process.

Last fall, the Committee on the Status of Womenreleased a report on women in the social sciences.Among other things, it recommended the socialscience departments make a written explanation ofthe tenure process available to junior faculty.

And Masten, in his letter-to-the-editor lastmonth, leveled harsh criticism at the ambiguitiesof the system.

"Are there other undisclosed criteria Harvarduses in making determinations of tenure," heasked, "as opposed to, or supplementing, therecord of scholarly work and teaching?"

Reforming the Process

Despite these reproaches, senior and juniorfaculty acknowledge that there have been moreinternal promotions in recent years.

In the Government department, six associateprofessors received tenure in the last five years.Losick also says there have been more internalpromotions in the Biology department recently.

And Epps says it seems as if Harvard has beentrying to combat the perception that internalpromotions are impossible.

"There's a group of young scholars who havecome up from within the ranks of Harvard and haveattained tenure," he says.

Still, he adds that there are some "deservingpeople" who inevitably will be hurt by theprocess.

"I'm not going to be as naive or as arrogant asto think that everyone gets what [they] deserve,"he says.

But Shepsle says the University must not waverfrom its rigorous selection process.

"It would shortchange our students [to stopcomparing people to outside candidates via the'blind letter']," he says. "The responsible thingto do is to maintain that standard. We are agentsfor the future generations of students."

--David A. Fahrenthold and Andrew K. Mandelcontributed to the reporting of this story.CrimsonRoss. J. FleischmanCLIMBING THE RANKS: BRADLEY S. EPPSdoubted he would receive tenure.

Many junior faculty members complain thestringent tenure process provides disincentives toteach here, and some department chairs concede ithampers their recruitment efforts. They alsoobject to the secrecy which shrouds the process.

"It's important for hiring of junior facultythat people feel that they have some kind ofshot," says Professor of History Susan G.Pedersen, who chairs the Faculty's StandingCommittee on the Status of Women.

But Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles saysemphatically that the system does not need to bechanged simply because junior faculty are rarelypromoted.

The University's main goal, he says, must be toprovide support to junior faculty, so that theyhave "the best chance of a career opportunity hereor elsewhere."

According to Knowles' annual budget letter tothe Faculty, more than 40 percent of tenuredappointments have come from internal promotions inthe last three years, compared with under 30percent in the previous three-year period.

Still, Pedersen is not alone in saying "It'stime for the University to look at thisseriously."

A Unique System

Harvard's tenure process is unique in manyways.

Before appointing a scholar to tenure, mostuniversities, such as the University of Californiaat Berkeley, seek to determine that the nominee'squalifications meet their institutionalrequirements.

By contrast, a person considered for tenure atHarvard must be judged to be the leading scholaravailable in a particular field.

"When you're hired at Berkeley, if you meet thestandards for tenure at Berkeley, you have aposition," says Patti L. Owen, manager of academicpersonnel at Berkeley. "You're hired into aposition with the expectation that you will gettenure."

Sixty-seven percent of the tenured faculty atBerkeley come from internal promotions. AtHarvard, that number is between 35 and 40 percent.

To identify the best available person, Harvardplaces tenure candidates on an unranked "shortlist" of about five leading scholars, usually at acomparable stage in their careers.

Candidates on the short list are typicallyinvited to Harvard to give a lecture or adepartmental seminar, and to respond to questions.Later, leading outside scholars are asked toevaluate the candidates on the short list, bothabsolutely and comparatively.

Unlike at other institutions, the letterrequesting outside evaluations is "blind" becauseit does not indicate if a particular individual onthe list is actually under serious consideration.It simply asks respondents to evaluate all of theindividuals on the list.

The major difference between Harvard and otherinstitutions is that while other universities,such as Princeton, use the outside evaluationssimply as a measuring stick, Harvard my actuallyoffer tenure to an outside scholar who appears inseveral blind letter responses, rather than itsown internal candidate.

"Every case for promotion of a junior facultymembers is considered on its own merits," saysKatherine T. Rohrer, associate dean of faculty atPrinceton.

Harvard is also unusual because it forms an adhoc committee of experts both from within Harvardand from other universities meets to adviseRudenstine about the particular tenurerecommendation.

At Princeton, by contrast, the same committeeevaluates all tenure cases, creating "realcontinuity from decision to decision," Rohrersays.

Princeton does not release statistics on thepercentage of tenured faculty who came frominternal promotions, but it is often considered tobe as difficult to receive tenure there as atHarvard.

"People realize that the odds are againstgaining tenure at Princeton," Rohrer says. "At thesame time, I hope that our junior faculty membersrealize that being in a place likePrinceton...offers a higher level of opportunityand resources than being a junior faculty memberat a place where tenure is easier to get."

Shortchanged?

But critics of Harvard's system say reasonablechances of promotion are necessary in addition togood resources.

Henry S. Rosovsky, former dean of the Faculty,once made a statement that recent tenure denialssuch as Masten's seem to disprove.

"The undergraduates are here for four years,the faculty is here for life, and the institutionis here forever," Rosovsky said.

But many faculty criticize Harvard for causinginstability by rarely promoting its own juniorfaculty to tenured positions.

Critics of the tenure process often note thehigh rate of turnover among junior faculty indepartment such as English.

Harvard departments review untenured faculty inthe seventh year of an eight-year contract, butsome junior faculty choose to leave before theirchances for promotion are so slim.

"Some of our really wonderful people have leftearly to some other department [with a more securetenure track]," says Leo Damrosch, chair of theEnglish department. "We've got to say it's therational thing to do,"

Calling Harvard's tenure process "antiquated,"William M. Losick, chair of the biologydepartment, says junior faculty should not beexpected to stand out as the leading scholars intheir fields after seven years.

"The problem is that it's hard at Harvard for ajunior faculty to accomplish enough so that theycan measure up in an international evaluation inthe blind letter in the number of years they'rehere," Losick says.

Kenneth A. Shepsle, chair of the Governmentdepartment, says the University's tenure processhas a positive effect on education because itmeans that "Harvard undergraduate are taught byonly the best senior faculty in each field."

But some undergraduates and graduates studentssay the high rate of turn-over caused by thetenure process may have negative consequences foreducation here.

"As a student, if you invest your time tryingto work with a particular person very closely,knowing that that person might leave or is in thejob market is a great disadvantage for you,especially if you're thinking about having themadvise you your senior year," says Mare R. Talusan'97, who was Masten's senior thesis advisee lastyear.

"So many of the departments here have what theycall 'stars,' who don't really do a lot ofteaching because they devote their time toresearch," he adds.

Scott L. Newstrom, a third-year graduatestudent in English, says he was discouraged fromrequesting Masten as his advisor because it wasunlikely that the junior professor would be atHarvard long enough to guide Newstrom through hisdissertation.

Epps says he himself refused to directdissertations for the same reason.

"I wasn't sure where I would be, hence I didn'tthink it was in the best interest for the graduatestudent," he says.

He adds, however, that he was "always committedto education," despite the fact that he wasanxious about finding another job if he did notreceive tenure here.

Epps' main concern is that the process is"couched in a great deal of mystery and secrecy."

"When you're dealing with important aspects ofpeople's lives, a bit more information would be agood think," he says. "The entire final part ofthe procedures could have almost been aboutsomeone else."

Pedersen also says there is a "lack of clarity"in the process.

Last fall, the Committee on the Status of Womenreleased a report on women in the social sciences.Among other things, it recommended the socialscience departments make a written explanation ofthe tenure process available to junior faculty.

And Masten, in his letter-to-the-editor lastmonth, leveled harsh criticism at the ambiguitiesof the system.

"Are there other undisclosed criteria Harvarduses in making determinations of tenure," heasked, "as opposed to, or supplementing, therecord of scholarly work and teaching?"

Reforming the Process

Despite these reproaches, senior and juniorfaculty acknowledge that there have been moreinternal promotions in recent years.

In the Government department, six associateprofessors received tenure in the last five years.Losick also says there have been more internalpromotions in the Biology department recently.

And Epps says it seems as if Harvard has beentrying to combat the perception that internalpromotions are impossible.

"There's a group of young scholars who havecome up from within the ranks of Harvard and haveattained tenure," he says.

Still, he adds that there are some "deservingpeople" who inevitably will be hurt by theprocess.

"I'm not going to be as naive or as arrogant asto think that everyone gets what [they] deserve,"he says.

But Shepsle says the University must not waverfrom its rigorous selection process.

"It would shortchange our students [to stopcomparing people to outside candidates via the'blind letter']," he says. "The responsible thingto do is to maintain that standard. We are agentsfor the future generations of students."

--David A. Fahrenthold and Andrew K. Mandelcontributed to the reporting of this story.CrimsonRoss. J. FleischmanCLIMBING THE RANKS: BRADLEY S. EPPSdoubted he would receive tenure.