This post is part of Summary Judgment Motions and Evidence.
Had it not been for the subjects the FRB considered, there is no doubt that I would have been promoted to tenure. My motion for partial summary judgment explains:
Both the Subcommittee and Standing Committee confidently concluded that Plaintiff had more than met HBS’s standards for academic work. (See subcommittee report.) Letters in support of Plaintiff’s candidacy were effusive. (SF 89.) Internal letters praised “an amazingly intellectual resource” and “knowledge and brilliance” in “an unusual combination of talents” and an “extraordinary” publication record (letter from F029) with “exceptional impact” including “economic theory at its best” and “risk-taking [in] confronting public issues” (letter from F017).
External letters praised “the careful forensic work that academics are capable of but rarely spend the time to carry out … break[ing] the ivory tower mold” (letter from A001) “as rigorous as … impactful” (A012), a “force of nature [and] amazing role model,” finding “no one like him” in “quality of the top papers, quantity of papers, quantity in top journals, diversity of outlets, influence in the academy and, perhaps most importantly, influence beyond the academy.” (A014) One letter-writer said a recent talk by Plaintiff was the “best discussion I’ve ever seen of any paper in any context … everyone in the room learned something … [a perspective] no other economist (or lawyer) could provide.” (A014)
The Subcommittee concluded Plaintiff was not just “clearly over the bar in terms of [academic research], he is also over the bar on both managerial and educator audiences”—meaning Plaintiff satisfied all three paths to HBS tenure, an achievement the Subcommittee called “most unusual” because only one is required. (See subcommittee report p.18.) Notes from the 2017 Standing Committee discussion stated “Everyone in attendance believed that [Plaintiff] passed our standards for scholarship, course development, and teaching.” Healy remembered that Plaintiff’s work was “really excellent and more than met our standards for promotion to full professor.” Dean Nohria believed that Plaintiff’s scholarly contributions were “well over the bar” of expectations for a tenured professor and that Plaintiff’s teaching met HBS’s standards.
There’s considerably more within the exhibits. F018: “economic theory at its best.” “I cannot imagine not promoting him to tenure.” “One can only marvel at his unbounded energy, the depth of his mind, and his creativity in the way that he frames economic problems. These are not the sort of skills one learns in classes or seminars. They are borne of an intense, innate curiosity about every facet of economic activity and a drive to make the world a better place.” F007: “[H]e is a special talent and we need him.” “I can’t imagine that there will be much disputing that Ben meets our standard for outstanding intellectual contribution.” “I support strongly the case for tenure.”
In a final attempt to minimize the FRB’s breaches, Dean Nohria claims he would have withheld support for my candidacy regardless, based on the FRB’s critiques of my lawsuit against American Airlines and my based on the alleged deficiencies in my disclosures. This argument fails because Nohria’s information was derived entirely from the FRB report—a report tainted at its core by the failings previously detailed. In particular, the FRB’s investigation into these subjects lacked an allegation, expanded impermissibly and at the last minute, and failed to reach the fact-based conclusions required by the P&P. Had the FRB followed the rules, the record before Nohria would have looked totally different.
Furthermore, Nohria admits he found it significant that the Appointments Committee vote was not stronger in favor of my promotion. (SF 81-83.) However, that vote was tainted by the FRB’s distorted presentation of witness testimony. Explaining the rationale for their AC votes, numerous faculty members cited claims from the FRB report—claims I could have rebutted had the FRB shared the evidence and otherwise complied with P&P. The vote was not a correct evaluation of my merits, but a consequence of the FRB’s distortions.
I do not claim to be perfect. But I excelled at the things Harvard Business School values: high-impact, practical research and the unique challenge of HBS case-method teaching. There is no other job quite like HBS faculty, and I dedicated myself to it.
The record is clear: My promotion to tenure would have succeeded had the 2017 FRB followed its rules. When HBS bypassed those rules in favor of a predetermined outcome, I was deprived of a career I loved and a promotion I earned. Hence this lawsuit.