HARTMAN . . .

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I read with interest the May 24 CRIMSON story on the GSD Faculty's action with regard to my appeal of their decision not to renew my teaching contract. Let me just add one important point that was omitted. The concept of "adequate consideration" is far from "meaningless," as Dean Kilbridge claims. It is a phrase used by the AAUP and is defined in terms of answers to the following questions: "Was the decision conscientiously arrived at? Was all available evidence bearing on the relevant performance of the candidate sought out and considered? Was there adequate deliberation by the department over the import of the evidence in the light of relevant standards? Were irrelevant and improper standards excluded from consideration? Was the decision a bona fide exercise of professional academic judgment?" (Spring 1970 AAUP Buliletin.) It is, in short, due process in the academic arena and would seem to be part and parcel of any meaningful notion of academic freedom.

My case before the GSD Faculty is a good test of how "the system" responds to "legitimate" protest. To date, we have seen the following: delay of nearly a year in dealing with my appeal; deletion of one of the two substantive grounds for appeal originally passed by the Faculty and on the basis of which I drew up my "brief": establishment of a procedure violating most known rules of appeal and arbitration, whereby the same body that made the original decision selects the body to hear a challenge to that decision; elimination of any meaningful vestige of protection to the appellant by denying him any voice or representation on that appeals committee; establishment of rules calling for star-chamber hearings and a confidential final report; all capped by a procedure which calls for the same man who made the original decision to have sole and full responsibility for receiving and disposing of the review committee's recommendations.

It all sounds a little like the Middle Ages. Those interested in the question of academic freedom and the responsiveness of institutions like Harvard would do well to follow the progress of this case carefully.University of California, Berkeley