Word: review
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1990-1999
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...example, one learns from Dean Thompson's own memo of March 27, 1998, concerning "The Tenure Appointment Process in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences," that regardless of individual character faculty associate deans routinely recuse themselves from matters touching on tenure review in their home departments. A letter to me and my advisor, Professor Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, of Oct. 21, 1998, from Professor Roderick MacFarquhar, chair of the Department of Government, explains that in the composition of the ad hoc committee, "The Dean has the final word, presumably to ensure that no Department can pack the committee...
...purpose of these procedural safeguards in Harvard's tenure review system and others like them is to shield professors and administrators from situations in which their private interests or the interests that attach to their offices might distort their judgment. In this context it is curious to hear the associate provost of Harvard University downplay the reach and significance of his administrative position. It is odd to witness the director of the Program in Ethics and the Professions depreciate the importance of fundamental norms of fair process. And it is false and insulting for Prof. Thompson to suggest that asking...
Second, Prof. Thompson both obscures his actual role in my tenure review and contradicts a statement he made to The Crimson on Jan. 12, 1998, in his Dec. 14 statement to The Crimson. "I participated in the department as I normally do," Professor Thompson declared, "and I didn't play a role after [deliberations in] the department...
...precisely by participating in departmental deliberations in the normal fashion after becoming associate provost of the University (in September of 1996 shortly before my tenure review began) that Prof. Thompson compromised the integrity of the tenure review process. For by opposing my tenure in the Department of Government in his role as professor while serving in the office of President Rudenstine, the final judge in tenure review at Harvard, Prof. Thompson violated the fundamental norm of procedural fairness that prohibits one from serving as both judge and party to a cause...
Professor Thompson pointed out that "he did not appear before the ad hoc committee, as he was out of town on the day it met." But this hardly settles the question of whether he participated in the tenure review after departmental deliberations...