Tenure appeal spans 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.

NEWS IN REVIEW

If nothing else, Berkowitz's campaign to win a new hearing for tenure has demonstrated that there is 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.harvard.edu/eon/evidence/berkowitz.ht ml.

The Web 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 ofthe Faculty found Berkowitz's formal grievance,filed with Dean of the Faculty of Arts andSciences (FAS) Jeremy R. Knowles on Jan. 6, to be"clearly without merit."

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

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

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

On Aug. 27, 1998, Berkowitz wrote to the dean,requesting procedures applicable to an appeal of adecision by Rudenstine. Knowles responded on Sept.17 via Secretary of the Faculty John B. Fox Jr.'59, who forwarded Berkowitz a copy of theUniversity's published Guidelines for theResolutions of Faculty Grievances.

In accordance with Phase 1 of the Guidelines,Berkowitz then met with his department head,Williams Professor of history and PoliticalScience Roderick MacFarquhar, who said he was notin a position to overturn a decision of thePresident.

Phase 2 of the Guidelines required thatBerkowitz consult privately with an associatedean. Berkowitz says the obvious choice wasAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J.Thompson, wife of Associate Provost Dennis F.Thompson. Dennis Thompson figures prominently inBerkowitz's grievance.

In a Nov. 3 letter, Fox urged Berkowitz tocontact either Kenan Professor of English MarjorieGarber or Dean Elizabeth Doherty instead of DeanThompson.

Berkowitz says he saw no reason to approachGarber or Doherty, who are the school's designatedcontacts for affirmative action complaints.

The Crimson's requests for an explanation ofFox's directive did not elicit a response fromUniversity officials.

Berkowitz proceeded by writing to DeanThompson. His Nov. 9 letter, which outlined hiscomplaint was also sent to Knowles.

In her Nov. 17 response, Thompson denied havinghad anything to do with Berkowitz's tenure reviewand stated that she had recused herself from theappeal.

Two days later, Berkowitz received a letterfrom Knowles, indicating that the dean had foundevidence of "some misunderstanding" in Berkowitz'sstatements about his tenure review.

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

On Dec. 2, Berkowitz notified Knowles of hisintent to file a formal grievance, in accordancewith 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 onto the elected members of the DocketCommittee-Professor of Economics David M. Cutler'87, Richards Professor of Chemistry Cynthia M.Friend and Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematicsand Mathematical Logic Warren D. Goldfarb '69-whomthe Guidelines charged with determining whether ornot the grievance was "clearly without merit."

During the nearly five-month period the electedmembers took to deliberate over Berkowitz'scomplaint, both he and Nesson wrote to the DocketCommittee several times, expressing their desireto appear before it.

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

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

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

Though Hoffmann left after an hour, Berkowitz'smeeting with the elected members lasted for overan hour and a half. He describes it as a "lengthygrill session," during which he fielded legalisticquestions from Cutler, Friend and Goldfarb.

The elected members' letter of May 28, whichinforms Berkowitz that they have found hisgrievance to be "clearly without merit," indicatesthat the May 5 session was "very helpful."

"The purpose of our meeting with you was togive you time to explain to us the points youwanted us to consider and to give us theopportunity to talk with you about the facts andissues we were weighing as we moved toward adecision," the elected members write.

According to Friend, the spokesperson for theDocket Committee, the elected members aresatisfied now that they have finished their work.

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

Berkowitz, who has already written a responseto the Docket Committee's letter, says he feels nosuch sense of finality.

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

One lesson, which he attributes to his "friendCharlie Nesson," bodes well for those who havederived entertainment from following the Berkowitzcase over the Web.

"I have learned that to vindicate one'srights," Berkowitz says, "it can be necessary andfun to make a little mischief.

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

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

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

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

On Aug. 27, 1998, Berkowitz wrote to the dean,requesting procedures applicable to an appeal of adecision by Rudenstine. Knowles responded on Sept.17 via Secretary of the Faculty John B. Fox Jr.'59, who forwarded Berkowitz a copy of theUniversity's published Guidelines for theResolutions of Faculty Grievances.

In accordance with Phase 1 of the Guidelines,Berkowitz then met with his department head,Williams Professor of history and PoliticalScience Roderick MacFarquhar, who said he was notin a position to overturn a decision of thePresident.

Phase 2 of the Guidelines required thatBerkowitz consult privately with an associatedean. Berkowitz says the obvious choice wasAssociate Dean for Academic Affairs Carol J.Thompson, wife of Associate Provost Dennis F.Thompson. Dennis Thompson figures prominently inBerkowitz's grievance.

In a Nov. 3 letter, Fox urged Berkowitz tocontact either Kenan Professor of English MarjorieGarber or Dean Elizabeth Doherty instead of DeanThompson.

Berkowitz says he saw no reason to approachGarber or Doherty, who are the school's designatedcontacts for affirmative action complaints.

The Crimson's requests for an explanation ofFox's directive did not elicit a response fromUniversity officials.

Berkowitz proceeded by writing to DeanThompson. His Nov. 9 letter, which outlined hiscomplaint was also sent to Knowles.

In her Nov. 17 response, Thompson denied havinghad anything to do with Berkowitz's tenure reviewand stated that she had recused herself from theappeal.

Two days later, Berkowitz received a letterfrom Knowles, indicating that the dean had foundevidence of "some misunderstanding" in Berkowitz'sstatements about his tenure review.

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

On Dec. 2, Berkowitz notified Knowles of hisintent to file a formal grievance, in accordancewith 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 onto the elected members of the DocketCommittee-Professor of Economics David M. Cutler'87, Richards Professor of Chemistry Cynthia M.Friend and Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematicsand Mathematical Logic Warren D. Goldfarb '69-whomthe Guidelines charged with determining whether ornot the grievance was "clearly without merit."

During the nearly five-month period the electedmembers took to deliberate over Berkowitz'scomplaint, both he and Nesson wrote to the DocketCommittee several times, expressing their desireto appear before it.

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

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

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

Though Hoffmann left after an hour, Berkowitz'smeeting with the elected members lasted for overan hour and a half. He describes it as a "lengthygrill session," during which he fielded legalisticquestions from Cutler, Friend and Goldfarb.

The elected members' letter of May 28, whichinforms Berkowitz that they have found hisgrievance to be "clearly without merit," indicatesthat the May 5 session was "very helpful."

"The purpose of our meeting with you was togive you time to explain to us the points youwanted us to consider and to give us theopportunity to talk with you about the facts andissues we were weighing as we moved toward adecision," the elected members write.

According to Friend, the spokesperson for theDocket Committee, the elected members aresatisfied now that they have finished their work.

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

Berkowitz, who has already written a responseto the Docket Committee's letter, says he feels nosuch sense of finality.

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

One lesson, which he attributes to his "friendCharlie Nesson," bodes well for those who havederived entertainment from following the Berkowitzcase over the Web.

"I have learned that to vindicate one'srights," Berkowitz says, "it can be necessary andfun to make a little mischief.