Other argue, though, that the Harvard Faculty could be even better.

Smith College President Jil Conway, speaking this week at the Cambridge Forum, said that qulaified women are still excluded because of the sexist hiring practices of major universities.

Skocpol echoes this belief, and lays the blame on the secretive tenure process. "It is administratively irresponsible to remain ambiguous on such basic issues as the number and definition of positions, because the whole point is that men and women have a chance to compete equally for the same positions," she says.

Keller, who serves as the Faculty's affirmative action officer, agrees that women are "under-utilized" at Harvard relative to their proportions in the academic community. Her figures show a dozen departments with too few women.

But she also points to the rapid rise of women Ph.D.'s in the last two decades as an explanation. "You can't get representation overnight because you have to have vacancies in the various fields," she says.

In addition, according to Keller, "The departments are required to document the steps they took to identify women and minority group members in the search," and to explain why the best of these candidates were not selected.

If the department has a rational explanation, presumably it won't get in trouble. But, Harvard has learned, it may have to stop presuming.

In the Isaacs case, for instance, the dean of the Faculty expressed a preference for Americanists rather than Africanists in the Afro-American Studies Department. Isaacs, whose field is Ethiopian languages and civilization, was thus excluded.

In the Skocpol case, Bok has decided that Skocpol's field, broadly described as comparative-historical sociology, is no more important than any other field for the Sociology Department.

Skocpol has accordingly been compared on a short list with leading sociologists from a variety of sub-fields. Perhaps, observers say, this has reduced her chances for tenure.

Were there instances of discrimination in either case? The answer may end up being decided in federal court. Also subject to debate there is the notion of the University as a self-regulating institution.

Secrecy at the University, it seems, is fine--if you can trust Harvard's system of internal checks and balances.

The question arises--and there does not appear to be an answer--as to who is better qualified than the University to shape the University's Faculty.

"You have to let those closest to the subject make the decisions," says Dreben.

"If you begin with the view that no system is perfect," Keller adds, "I think this one has done pretty well by us."

Right or not, Harvard may have to let someone else do the judging this time.