after tire and was first learning to associate professor at harvard university in two thousand and eight the acting chair and the only one intended in her department at the time told her that in order to be successful at harvard she  need to behave like a dinner for daughter meaning an employee who did not complain and now when she came up to ten years she would be held to a higher standard than the man in her department when harvard denied dr tynan tenure in may of tw thirteen that is exactly what happened the record here is replete with facts from which of cheering to conclude that one harvard tied into a higher standard than the male candidates before and after her to expose it comments and gender bias and hostility to titan's protected activities so improper animists and three that escalated hostility toward titans application in tandem with her protected activity underway which we got here referring to professor titan that you know is the last five people tenured in the anthropology department who only had one book in fact the professor recalls now that i think about it no successful internal contemporaneous documents at the time were having a conversation about whether you needed one book or two broke or whether it was a question about having a substantial second project and under either standard here as applied when looking in comparison to  candidates before and after tied in a jury to find dead she met those qualifications record also overflights expose that comment about gender bias at harvard and hostility towards titans protected activity the only tenured woman in titans department who signed her promotion letter in two thousand and eight that we just discussed with our tight end that certain expectations will be placed on female faculty members that are placed on bail faculty members perhaps too simple what is the evidence for this comment actually influenced president else we want to look at the comments that she would be held to a higher standard when we look at how she was treated in of the comments of the record in addition to other evidence of gender discrimination specifically in the anthropology department turned out to douse through the decision that as close to the decision making process  herself was receiving the information from what happened in the ad hoc committee she herself was making a decision based on the recommendation of others now are not on her own age of pain and you  rarely underscore where we take notes but when this professor started testifying name cell presenting much more negatively than his later before and his testimony before that i started taking notes both savior and professor not supported gender discrimination it with the this quiet that is being clear that circumstantial evidence including tamper proximity deviations from ordinary procedure comments  seventh is the day that dr titan was outspoken in the crowd harvard crimson the newspaper about supporting students titanite grades and only three days later he wrote a private letter to the dean saying i question whether she would contribute to the intellectual teach other students of sexual harassment and also the matters that criticize her as an institution for not having the proper kind of procedures in place to support students who were victims of sexual harassment and he testified that he knew the time was two  taking those actions criticizing harboring and supporting students who had accused other students of sexual harassment and i at the same time that there were instances of sexual harassment in his own department which coincides exactly with darker report sexual harassment against another professor this time is first protected activity the second is commenting in the crimson in support of the students who are protesting harvard's handling of their rights under title mine and in addition murphy thank you aren't made please the court my name is martin murphy i represent harbourne smatter respectfully we request that the court affirm the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in this professor tied in his field to offer any evidence direct or circumstantial that would call into question the legitimate merits based reasons that harvard's ultimate decision maker president diversity that shows that she conducted independent searching in for a record but kind of inquiry that one would expect from an independent decision maker she had received a report on the external scholars will have a better perspective on our unique candidates ability to contribute to a particular field then the people in her own department who may not have the same specialty and may cause differences between the scholarly assessment of the people in her own department and the outside scholars who evaluated the candidates sing decision a number of years ago in the us they call it a case ultimately respect has to be accorded to the decision makers in these kinds of academic tenure cases and unless the arguments that are made given by the university for dying ten ten year be obviously weak or an impossible and i would respectfully suggest that they are nothing like that here the harvard system is designed to make sure nature that a person's colleagues in one's own department may be reluctant to be critical of the individual in down the best way to get an assessment about whether this person is a scholar of the first order of balance is to ask the opinions of scholars from other universities in this case the scholars from other universities said certainly some cases are seen as when they get to the committee of appointments and promotions clear yes those go directly to the president the post she makes the ultimate decision but the committee h concluded that the record is sufficient to enable her to make that decision some decided cases are rejected by the committee on appointments and promotions but typically and that's the language in the record typically  change of heart because of the communication proximity that is the explanation for why there was a change on what is sure response to why he seemingly went from early as the fall of the previous year when he first read the spanish and english language editions of professor titans but he noted the overlap and express concern about whether they could be viewed and ultimately concluded that they could not be viewed as two distinct projects over the course of time he was the person to whom the extra letter writers sent their letters in he received two letters that ra really should be viewed the to move being bush language dish and in the spanish language tradition really should be viewed as a single private then the question is did professor tied and made substantial progress on a second project and the record shows that she did not the record shows that she had published a number of articles about the work that she did in columbia but only one of those articles had been published in the previous five years when the record also shows that none of those have been published in major anthropological peer reviewed journals of the kind of the she was advised to publish in addition  journals and you need to have substantial progress on a distinct new manuscript of a book that's what was required that was required at the other candidates as well and with the exception of of a candidate off because if by have an extra year off i do not doubt additional book i can get that manuscript on in mind chances of getting tenure go about ninety percent my tenure ability go up ninety factors i think the record is undisputed were what drove the chairman of the department his concerns about her impact on the field or scholarly productivity members concern about her impact on the field and her scrawly productivity and ultimately president's most decision of which she made after this some very serious consideration and back and forth and trying to understand exactly what had happened in the arab army and to weigh that against the information that she had from the department and from from others sources tell me a considered decision based the merits now i think the poor that perhaps other scholars this is the nature of this business could disagree about whether professor tolerant should be tenured or not but i would suggest to the court that the decision finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to send the case back to the district court for trial in that case if you look at the facts of that case it reinforces the difference between what the court found the the question was whether the decision was motivated by gender discrimination in the decision maker never said i don't want women promoted this decision making never said anything dramatically that would count as direct evidence that it was a part of the ten year process at all no member of the ad hoc had any had any knowledge of what did the president the president did not there about the person the professor who had been selected to be that chair ever tenure of your committee asked in the interests of making sure that there were no conflicts wedded there were any concerns bice posting march tenth on march seventh so three days earlier professor titan had to answer the court's question on direct had commented not her there is nothing in the paper copy of the criticism that reflected anything she said she posted in the online comments section of the harvard crimson and that professor testified under oath that he had never read the crimson and did not read those kind of credibility determination that we make in these cases that but the plaintiff has to a looser date specific facts that would call into question whether the decision was made on the merits or a little further inqui