from The Harvard Crimson, May 9, 1997, pp. 1, 7

by Jal D. Mehta

Tenure Denial Raises Concerns

The recent decision to deny tenure to associate professors of Government Bonnie Honig and Peter Berkowitz has been shrouded in secrecy, but faculty members familiar with the cases suspect procedural improprieties that may raise questions about the legitimacy of the decisions.

In a letter that was addressed to Associate Provost Dennis F. Thompson, but sent to President Neil L. Rudenstine and other top political theorists in Harvard and out, Johns Hopkins University Chair of Political Science William E. Connolly, who was once Honig's' academic advisor, suggests that "back-channel communications" unduly influenced the decision on Honig's tenure.

Sources close to the decision at Harvard and beyond said they question potential contradictions by the author of a letter of recommendation for Honig and the stacking of a tenure advisory body with people unfavorable to Berkowitz. Connolly's letter, which is written in a mocking tone, suggests that someone has violated the sanctity of the tenure process and that Thompson should serve as "Special Investigator" into the case.

"In this case there is some reason to suspect that (or at the very least to wonder whether) one or two colleagues breached the procedures," Connolly wrote.

Connolly did no provide specific accusations in his letter and did not return repeated calls over the past two days.

"The charges raised by Professor Connolly are serious enough that I feel they should be looked into," said one senior faculty member who did not wish to be identified. "I fell we will be haunted by this if we don't look into it further."

Various sources have confirmed that between two thirds and three quarters of the government department faculty supported the Honig nomination and that four of the five professors on the ad hoc committee supported her.

Thompson declined to comment on all matters yesterday, citing the confidentiality of the tenure process, as did Chair of the Government Department Kenneth A. Shepsle.

"The ad hoc process is a confidential process," Shepsle said. "Many rumors float around, people should be very careful not to give undue wight to them."

Many senior faculty members declined to comment in accordance with Harvard's confidentiality policy in tenure decisions.

But Professor of Government Seyla Benhabib said this case is unusual.

"There have been [tenure] cases in the past where I have been unhappy, but this case is unusual because outside sources have raised questions about the impropriety about Harvard's procedure," Benhabib said.

Rudenstine's office also declined to comment.

"There is a long-standing policy that the president does not make public comment on tenure decisions," said Director of Public Affairs Alex Huppé.

Critics of the Honig decision point to a discrepancy in the comments of one outside reviewer of her tenure.

Amy Gutmann, who is dean of the faculty at Princeton and heads Princeton's Center for Human Values, was recently asked to review a Honig manuscript which was submitted to Princeton University Press.

According to several sources, the letter on the book was generally favorable, but her recommendation to Harvard, written shortly thereafter, did not express support for the tenure nomination. Though critics admitted that the two positions are not mutually exclusive, many in the academic community still questioned what may have led her to offer such differing views.

When presented with the perceived contradiction yesterday afternoon, Gutmann said, "I don't think it is appropriate for me to speak on a tenure case."

Faculty members have also said that the selection of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee was unusual.

In the tenure process in the Government Department, a committee is formed within the department, composed of representatives from the subfields of American politics, international relations, comparative politics, and theory.

The committee meets, considers outside letters and makes a recommendation to the department.

In both cases, the committee recommendation was favorable and the cases were passed on to the full department for consideration.

In accordance with procedure, after the full department endorsed the candidates, the chairs of the two subcommittees composed lists of people to serve on the ad hoc committees.

Kenan professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. ‘53, chair of the Berkowitz subcommittee, and Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel, chair of the Honig subcommittee, both refused to comment on the compositions of the ad hoc committees citing the confidentiality of the tenure process.

Ad hoc committees include two to three members from other Harvard departments and three specialists in the field from other universities. They are chaired by Rudenstine.

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles makes the final decision about who should serve on ad hoc committees.

Still, a source characterized the composition of the Berkowitz ad hoc committee, which, unlike the Honig committee, did not vote for his promotion, as "hostile" to the candidate.

Knowles, who is in California, did not respond to a fax sent there early yesterday afternoon.

Several sources noted that Thompson has several connection with various parts of the two tenure decisions.

In addition to being the addressee of the Connolly letter, Thompson was the only one of Harvard's five senior political theorists who voted against the Honig case at the departmental level. According to a government department source.

Thompson is also a close friend of Rudenstine, and he and Gutmann have co-authored a book which was published last year titled, Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot be Avoided in Politics, and What Should be Done About It.

Berkowitz, who is characterized as a Straussian, wrote an article in the New Republic last fall which critiqued the mainstream liberal values of the book written by Thompson and Gutmann.

"[Berkowitz and Thompson] have a fundamental dispute about what political philosophy is," said Yale Professor of Political Science Steven B. Smith.

A University official suggested last night that due to the confidential nature of Harvard's tenure process, a great deal of information that would explain the alleged improprieties has not been allowed to come to light.