Tenure System Fails Masten

I write as a former faculty member of the English department to express my deep disappointment that the University chose not to offer tenure to Associate Professor Jeffrey Masten. Masten's records as a scholar, a teacher and a colleague are extraordinary.

The president's decision suggests to a junior faculty closely watching Masten's case less that Harvard has "impossible standards," as we often hear from the world outside, than that it is impossible to know what they are if Masten has not met them.

I was surprised to learn that Masten's youth might have been held against him, that younger scholars constitute a risk to smaller departments. There's nothing in his history of publication suggesting as much. And to anyone who has ever worked with Masten, studied with him, heard him speak at professional events, exchanged writing with him or sat down in his office, the notion that this individual is dicey as either scholar or citizen is so contrary to the evidence as to offend judgment.

If the tenure decision truly hinged here--would he grow indifferent or irresponsible after tenure? And would we be stuck with his disaffection for 40 years?--then it hinged on an evaluation of his character. And he should have passed. Masten is not the highly productive colleague one never sees but the highly productive colleague on whom communities depend. Professor Leo Damrosch's support (Letters, Jan. 12) suggests that he agrees.

We can never know exactly what happened here, and so I address only what's been suggested: this has to do with Masten's age, the department's size and some concerns about the future. If this picture is accurate, I respectfully submit that something is terribly wrong with the process. Something is wrong when what we know to be true of Masten cannot be communicated to or impressed upon a president who must decide who is a risk, or, as in this case, a gift. --Lynn Wardley, Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Stanford University