Berkowitz's Appeal Process Spanned 1998-99 Academic Year

During the academic year 1998-99, Associate Professor of Government Peter Berkowitz's tenure appeal saw a lot of action and few results. While a

mutually satisfactory resolution remained elusive, Berkowitz and Harvard administrators struggled to maintain cordiality through a series of

face-to-face and virtual confrontations.

If nothing else, Berkowitz's campaign to win a new hearing for tenure has demonstrated that there's a role for the Internet in today's academic disputes.

From the scores of e-mails exchanged between the associate professor and various University officials to the official Berkowitz Web site, virtual connections and forums have woven a trail of records, open to all, throughout the case.

While sating the community's curiosity, the availability of almost every missive, statement and document relating to Berkowitz's tenure appeal may have irked the University, which has stamped much of its correspondence "personal and confidential" only to see it appear at the Berkowitz home page, http://cyber.harvardedu/eon/evidence/berkowitz.html.

The Internet site was launched by Weld Professor of Law Charles R. Nesson '60, who has been Berkowitz's ally, adviser and confidante since April 1997, when President Neil L. Rudenstine decided not to grant the junior professor tenure.

From the University's vantage, despite the publicity afforded by the Web site--a minor annoyance for Harvard, which is accustomed to secrecy in its internal proceedings--the year has ended with vindication.

Two weeks ago, an elected Docket Committee of the Faculty found Berkowitz's formal grievance, filed with Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Jeremy R. Knowles on Jan. 6, to be "clearly without merit."

The dismissal of Berkowitz's complaint by the Docket Committee effectively lays it to rest as far as the University is concerned.

Knowles confirmed that with the receipt of the committee's verdict, "the processes of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences are now complete."

Traceable on the Web site, the grievance's path to this point--apparently the end of the line for Berkowitz's appeal within the FAS--began with a letter Berkowitz sent to Knowles late last summer.

On Aug. 27, 1998, Berkowitz wrote to the dean, requesting procedures applicable to an appeal of a decision by Rudenstine. Knowles responded on Sept. 17 via Secretary of the Faculty John B. Fox Jr. '69, who forwarded Berkowitz a copy of the University's published Guidelines for the Resolutions of Faculty Grievances.

In accordance with Phase 1 of the Guidelines, Berkowitz then met with his department head, Williams Professor of history and Political Science Roderick McFarquhar, who said he was not in a position to overturn a decision of the President.

Phase 2 of the Guidelines required that Berkowitz consult privately with an associate dean. Berkowitz says the obvious choice was Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol Thompson, wife of Associate Provost Dennis F. Thompson. Dennis Thompson figures prominently in Berkowitz's grievance.

In a November 3 letter, Fox urged Berkowitz to contact either Kenan Professor of English Marjorie Garber or Dean Elizabeth Doherty instead of Dean Thompson.

Berkowitz says he saw no reason to approach Garber or Doherty, who are the school's designated contacts for affirmative action complaints.

The Crimson's requests for an explanation of Fox's directive did not elicit a response from University officials.

Berkowitz proceeded by writing to Dean Thompson. His letter November 9 letter, which outlined his complaint was also sent to Knowles.

In her Nov. 17 response, Thompson denied having had anything to do with Berkowitz's tenure review and stated that she had recused herself from the appeal.

Two days later, Berkowitz received a letter from Knowles, indicating that the dean had found evidence of "some misunderstanding" in Berkowitz's statements about his tenure review.

Berkowitz wrote back on Nov. 25, asserting that he was not in any way mistaken and that his claims were in no way misinformed.

On Dec. 2, Berkowitz notified Knowles of his intent to file a formal grievance, in accordance with phase 3 of the Guidelines.

The grievance was submitted Jan. 6 to Knowles, the chair ex officio of the Docket Committee.

The next day, Knowles passed the complaint on to the elected members of

the Docket Committee--Professor of Economics David M. Cutler '87, Richards Professor of Chemistry Cynthia M. Friend and Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic Warren D. Goldfarb '69--whom the Guidelines charged with determining whether or not the grievance was "clearly without merit."

During the nearly five-month period the elected members took to deliberate over Berkowitz's complaint, both he and Nesson wrote to the Docket Committee several times, expressing their desire to appear before it.

The elected members arranged to meet with Berkowitz on May 5. Prior to the meeting, Fox notified Berkowitz that he could not bring Nesson.

Fox's letter stated that if Berkowitz wanted to have an advocate accompany him, the advocate would have to come from within FAS.

Mindful of this restriction, Berkowitz asked Buttenwieser University Professor Stanley H. Hoffmann to join him at the May 5 gathering.

Though Hoffmann left after an hour, Berkowitz's meeting with the elected members lasted for over an hour and a half. He describes it as a "lengthy grill session," during which he fielded legalistic questions from Cutler, Friend and Goldfarb.

The elected members' letter of May 28, which informs Berkowitz that they have found his grievance to be "clearly without merit," indicates that the May 5 session was "very helpful."

"The purpose of our meeting with you was to give you time to explain to us the points you wanted us to consider, and to give us the opportunity to talk with you about the facts and issues we were weighing as we moved toward a decision," the elected members write.

According to Friend, the spokesperson for the Docket Committee, the elected members are satisfied now that they have finished their work.

"We've completed our task," Friend says. "I really can't say anything more."

Berkowitz, who has already written a response to the Docket Committee's letter, says he feels no such sense of finality.

He does say, however, that the year has been "informative."

One lesson, which he attributes to his "friend Charlie Nesson," bodes well for those who have derived entertainment from following the Berkowitz case over the Web.

"I have learned that to vindicate one's rights," Berkowitz says, "it can be necessary and fun to make a little mischief."