The University needs to maintain secrecy in these matters, officials argue, to avoid hurting candidates' feelings. A person rejected by Harvard should not be subjected to public scorn, they say, and a person who does get tenure should be made to think that the vote was unanimous.

In addition, says Professor of Philosophy Burton S. Dreben '49, the man who organizes the ad hoc committee that review all departmental nominations for tenure, "You're not going to get individual professors from other schools to participate without the promise of secrecy."

Isaacs' lawyers have filed a number of subpoenas to obtain information about these confidential matters.

"You are not able to prove that someone is discriminated against unless you can compare them with other candidates," says Elizabeth Rodgers, Isaacs' chief lawyer.

Harvard's arguments of confidentiality cannot "shield an employer from sitting around in a meeting and saying "We don't want women' or 'We don't want Blacks" 'Rodgers adds. "We think the tenure system should be open to scrutiny by the courts."

Harvard has fought these subpoenas and the reasoning they represent.

The tenure system, officials report, includes a plethora of internal checks and balances designed to insures its fairness. "It's very much like the ideals of the American Constitution. That's the theory to it," says Dreben.

The internal checks include the review of departmental recommendations by top Faculty administrators before they are sent to Bok, who has the final say on all appointments. And, officials say, the Harvard perspective is balanced by the professors and experts from other schools who sit on the ad hoc committees.

Despite appearance, however, that outside scrutiny within the process supposedly guaranteed by the ad hoc groups does not preclude insider politicking.

"Any process that is not very rigid, which would probably be unhealthy, is going to be affected by a certain amount of politics," says Secretary to the Faculty John R. Marquand.

Also, not all department recommendations receive scrutiny. Only the positive recommendations do. If a department gives thumbs down, there are no internal checks or balances.

"How do you review the rest of the world that didn't get an offer?" asks Nathan Glazer, professor of Education and Social Structure, who teaches a course on the sociology of higher education.

"You can't force a department to bring up a name," adds David Riesman, Ford Professor of Social Sciences, Emeritus, who has written extensively on higher education.

So what it comes down to is trust. "How else can you operate?" Dreben implores. "I Fundamentally, if you're asking can you trust a department, the answer is yes."

And the proof, he says, is the fact that Harvard department consistently rate among the best in the country, and have done so for a long period of time.