Nesson, who said he would like to see"openness" replace the secrecy embedded in theUniversity's current tenure review practices,called the Docket Committee proceedings "loadedagainst Peter from the get-go."

The elected members, in dismissing Berkowitz'sgrievance, rejected his principal charges againstthe University. His complaint centered onallegations that his tenure review wascontaminated both by the ad hoc committee ofscholars convened to assess him and by theintervention of Associate Provost Dennis F.Thompson, a member of Berkowitz's department and aUniversity official.

Berkowitz has written a reply to the DocketCommittee. In this latest missive, which Berkowitzsaid he planned to send today, he challenged theauthority of the elected members to engage in alengthy investigation.

Berkowitz's response contains citations fromthe FAS Guidelines, which authorize the committeeonly to conduct a "preliminary screening" of aformal grievance filing like the one he submittedin January.

"I would have thought that an inquiry of nearlyfive months, which involved consultation withoutside legal counsel; the examination of severalwitnesses; an extensive review of Harvard rules;and a hearing in which I responded to questionsfrom the elected members for more than an hour anda half would together establish that my grievancescould by definition not be clearly without merit,"Berkowitz wrote.

Berkowitz claimed in his grievance that four ofthe five professors who served on his ad hoccommittee "showed bias, conflict of interest, orlack of relevant expertise."

Harvard's tenure procedures dictate that an adhoc committee be formed after a candidate hasreceived his or her department's recommendation.

According to University rules, Rudenstine, aspresident, is free to disregard the advice ofeither or both the relevant department and the adhoc committee in making his decision about tenure.

Endorsed by the Department of Government,Berkowitz did not receive the backing of amajority of the ad hoc committee members.

To Berkowitz's charge that his ad hoc committeewas poorly constituted, the Docket Committeeresponded with a counter-charge, suggestingBerkowitz misinterpreted the AppointmentHandbook's guidelines for convening an ad hoccommittee.

In their letter to Berkowitz, which he providedto The Crimson, the Docket Committee imputed toBerkowitz the belief that he was entitled to an adhoc committee of specialists in his particularfield-the history of political philosophy. Theelected members then suggested that this was afaulty expectation.

Citing Berkowitz's reference to "recognizedexperts" in his complaint, the elected memberswrote they could find no "requirement that anymember of an ad hoc tenure review committee, muchless the committee as a whole, be expert in thenarrow subject-matter areas of the tenurecandidate."

Berkowitz, in his retort, denied the premise ofthe Docket Committee's argument. He said he neverasserted that Harvard policy required theformation of an ad hoc committee of scholars whosespecialties exactly matched his own.

"Professor Friend's letter puts in my mouth,and then proceeds to refute, a claim nowhere foundin my formal grievance," Berkowitz said.

Friend, the official spokesperson for theelected members, refused to elaborate further onthe decision.