Ex-HBS Professor Says Harvard Rewrote, Then Ignored, Tenure Rules in Lawsuit

Former Harvard Business School associate professor Benjamin G. Edelman ’02 argued that Harvard rewrote and then ignored its own tenure review rules to block his promotion, according to court documents shared with The Crimson on Tuesday.

Across more than 1,200 pages of internal reports, emails, and handwritten notes filed as both sides seek summary judgment, the records detail how HBS wrote its tenure rules, how the Faculty Review Board applied them in Edelman’s case, and how senior administrators ultimately denied him tenure in 2017 — a process Edelman described as “intentionally skewed.”

Edelman’s claims centered on a “Principles and Procedures” document, which defines a set of procedures the Faculty Review Board must follow when investigating allegations of faculty misconduct. He argued that the P&P functioned as a contract that, in his view, Harvard was obligated to follow.

But Harvard shot back at that interpretation, writing that it was only meant to provide “guidance.”

In a 2015 email produced by Harvard, HBS professor Amy C. Edmondson — who chaired the FRB in Edelman’s case — wrote to a colleague that the board’s policies “unfortunately” required giving Edelman a chance to respond to a draft report.

Edelman argued that the message undercut Harvard’s claim that the rules were merely optional.

“If that procedure was not required, Edmondson should have just ignored the non-binding requirement, rather than complain about it,” Edelman wrote in remarks posted to his website Tuesday. “Harvard’s current interpretation is irreconcilable with how Edmondson and others understood the P&P at the time.”

A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment further on Edelman’s allegations.

Edelman sued Harvard in 2023, alleging that the University mishandled his tenure review and unfairly denied him tenure after public controversies in 2014, including viral emails he sent to a Brookline restaurant over a $4 overcharge.

Tenure cases at HBS are usually evaluated under standards in the long-standing “Green Book,” which measures candidates on intellectual contributions, teaching, and service to the HBS community. But Edelman’s case centered on the FRB’s P&P, which requires the board to draft formal allegations, gather evidence, and give the faculty member a chance to review that evidence and respond. Edelman argued that the framework was created with his case in mind and later misapplied.

In an email produced by Harvard, Jean M. Cunningham — the associate dean for faculty and academic affairs at HBS — wrote to colleagues about a meeting she had with Nitin Nohria, then the dean of HBS, to discuss creating a new policy and launching a review process for Edelman.

In another message, Cunningham made the focus explicit.

“(1) Respond to the Ben Edelman situation in particular,” she wrote, listing the process’s key objectives.

Harvard argued that even if the P&P had implied contractual force, its own language allowed deviations — and that the final decision rested with Nohria.

The University pointed to a provision in the “GreenBook” stating the dean is given “sole responsibility” for tenure recommendations and may “initiate or approve” variances from the procedures when the “circumstances of a particular case warrant it or are in the best interests of the School.”

Harvard’s lawyers argued that “this flexibility weighs against a finding that the FRB Principles were a contract.”

The tenure decision itself unfolded amid divided faculty support. HBS’ Standing Committee split evenly, and the Appointments Committee voted 41-29 in favor of tenure, with two abstentions — short of the supermajority that has typically cleared the way for a positive recommendation.

The decision ultimately fell to Nohria, who, Harvard said, denied tenure based on concerns about Edelman’s judgment and collegiality — not because of procedural flaws in the review. Harvard pointed to episodes including the 2014 restaurant dispute and later conduct during a two-year remediation period, when Edelman sued American Airlines without informing HBS leadership. Edelman said the lawsuit was not a violation of HBS’ conflict of interest policies.

After the decision, Edelman appealed to then-Provost Alan M. Garber ’76, requesting Garber personally review his case. But Garber declined to intervene, leaving the decision in place.

Garber added that the P&P was created with “several prior promotion cases” in mind rather than being built to target Edelman’s case.

Edelman also argued that the FRB skewed information and mischaracterized evidence during his evaluation, accusing the board of selectively excerpting testimony during his 2017 review to make it appear more negative.

One bullet point in the FRB report read, “He’s abrupt. He lacks grace. He’s more apt to pressure others — he asks questions the way you might in a seminar.”

But materials turned over by Harvard showed the full statement continued: “But he’s intellectually sharp. Asks great questions. He agrees to disagree.”

Harvard replied that the FRB was not required to provide verbatim quotations and instead summarized “perceptions and opinions.” It also argued that the FRB chose to leave out several negative comments from its final report.

Edelman countered that FRB members themselves had referred to the statements as “quotes” before litigation began. In one email, Edmondson wrote that she “wondered whether moving (or repeating) the quotes used as summary commentary to the bullet list might partly take care of the issue of them getting buried or not fully defended.”

“Only in litigation did Harvard begin to claim these weren’t quotes,” Edelman wrote. “Harvard’s position is ex-post rationalization, contrary to what everyone understood at the time.”

In the same email, Edmondson wrote that the FRB did hear comments that were “more positive (in part because the sample was hand picked by BE) but that didn’t negate the importance of the negative.”

Edelman argued that the review was unfair from the start and driven by concerns about institutional reputation. He pointed to internal notes in which reviewers described him as "irredeemable" and said it was “obvious that we shouldn’t have him on senior faculty.”

Harvard responded that nothing in its rules barred appointing reviewers who had predisposed opinions about a candidate.

“The FRB is not a jury,” Harvard wrote. “Nothing in the FRB Principles requires that HBS must choose FRB members who do not know the plaintiff, who have not formed views based on their experience with him, or do not form views — even strong views — based on their reactions to what the plaintiff has written or said.”

In his deposition, Nohria said it was “impossible” to create a committee with no prior interactions or impressions of Edelman given the size of the committee and the school.

“We are a very small committee,” he said. “Almost everybody at the school has had interactions with our faculty members in some way or another.”

Edelman also renewed his claim that Harvard destroyed evidence after litigation was foreseeable. He claimed that Edmondson was unable to produce 68 percent of messages she was known to have sent or received about the FRB in discovery and alleged that Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Development Paul M. Healy wiped a tablet containing relevant materials.

Edelman pointed to May 2018 emails in which Healy told Nohria that Edelman was “seriously considering” litigation and was preparing to “go to the next level.”

Harvard countered that a threat of a lawsuit was not tantamount to a formal notice and that Healy was referring to internal grievance channels — not litigation — which Edelman used by contacting Garber later that month. It also argued that Edelman sought help from HBS faculty finding work elsewhere, suggesting that he was not intending to sue Harvard at the time.

Edelman argued that Harvard then proceeded to wipe evidence before formal holds were imposed in August 2021.

Harvard denied that it intentionally destroyed evidence in its opposition to Edelman’s spoliation motion, claiming it preserved substantial records and produced seven of the 51 messages that Edelman claimed had been deleted, attributing the absence of others to technicalities in the HBS email inbox system.

Edelman, for his part, argued that though he is “not perfect,” he does not “have the flaws that the HBS FRB alleged” in a statement.

“A fair process, following the rules, would have cleared my name and shown a path for my candidacy to be evaluated on the merits,” he wrote. “Everyone in the Harvard community — students, staff, and faculty alike — deserves a fair process according to the applicable rules.”

The judge has not yet ruled on the motions and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. Harvard asked for summary judgment dismissing the case in full, while Edelman filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that Harvard violated its own rules, leaving only damages for trial.

Clarification: Jan. 13, 2026

This article has been updated to clarify that “Principles and Procedures” appears in both the long-standing “Green Book” governing tenure and in a separate document describing the Faculty Review Board’s role in investigating allegations of faculty misconduct. Edelman’s lawsuit concerns the Faculty Review Board’s Principles and Procedures, not the Green Book.

—Staff writer Graham W. Lee can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @grahamwonlee.

—Staff writer Katharine E. Chavez can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @KatharineEC7.

—Staff writer Siena G. Devine Guzmán can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @sienadevinee.