President Bok's decision to uphold the denial of tenure to Assistant Professor of Law Clare Dalton did not consider whether she had been a victim of gender discrimination, Bok said in a memo to the Law School faculty Wednesday.

According to Dalton's supporters, Bok's failure to investigate her charges of discrimination--in order to give an entirely fresh look at the facts of the case--means that her three-year bout for tenure will continue to haunt the school.

"The case is over. It was over last spring as far as the faculty is concerned. But the issue of discrimination for students and faculty members is as live as it ever was," said Law School Professor David W. Kennedy, a Dalton supporter.

These professors also questioned why Bok assembled a blue-ribbon panel of legalexperts without answering Dalton's prime claim,that she was a victim of political and genderdiscrimination.

"I'm very disappointed," said Warren Professorof Legal History Morton J. Horwitz, who appearedbefore Bok's external review committee in supportof Dalton. "President Bok's ad hoc committee didnot consider the question of whether there wasdiscrimination."

Some faculty members predicted that Bok'sfailure to address major issues in her case mayprompt a renewal of the charged atmosphere at theschool--which has been based on politicaldifferences in scholarship. For a time before theDalton controversy, the Law School went for nearlyfive years without a successful senior appointmentbecause of such disagreements.

But Bemis Professor of International Law DetlevF. Vagts, who was also present at the externalreview committee's deliberations this week,defended Bok's decision not to examine thediscrimination issue. "It might have been quitedisruptive to the faculty if he had concludedthere was sex discrimination in the process," saidVagts. The professor helped organize the firstreassessment of her work after the initial tenuredenial.

Law School Dean James Vorenberg '49, whooriginally asked Bok to review the case, said hedid not think Dalton had been discriminatedagainst.

"I do not think the faculty's action was basedon discrimination," Vorenberg said in a briefinterview.

Faculty opponents of Dalton's tenure appealcould not be reached or would not comment on thecase when contacted yesterday.

Other faculty members said they thought Bok'sreview was unfair because the external reviewcommittee did not consider Dalton's qualificationsin relation to other professors tenured the sameyear. That inquiry, they said, would have revealedthat Dalton was the victim of discrimination.

"I was shocked," said a professor who asked notto be identified. "The bottom line is that thereview didn't even consider any comparativeassessment of people who came up the same way."

But Dalton may have recourse to Bok's decisionthat would allow her to formally air thediscrimination issue. In November, Dalton filedsuit against the Law School, charging that genderdiscrimination lay behind her tenure denial by thefaculty. And according to her lawyer, the tortsexpert may actively pursue such a case against herformer employer.

Professors said yesterday that Dalton wouldreceive strong faculty support if she presses hercase. Dalton had postponed action on the suitpending the outcome of Bok's decision.

"I would expect a large percentage of thefaculty to testify on her behalf against theUniversity, well over 50 percent," said aprofessor who wished not to be identified.