As the woman physics professor referred to in the article "U Mass allows hiring wives with husbands" (Dec. 29, 1971), I wish to correct some misstatements in the report on my case at U Mass-Boston.

      It is not true that "the trustees had declined to rehire" me, as stated in the article. On the contrary, the only actions the Trustees took on my employment were favorable ones. The first occurred in 1965 when they approved dual appointments for my husband, George Salzman, and myself to the physics faculty of the new U Mass-Boston campus, his with tenure, mine without. They also approved subsequent recommendations for my reappointment.

      In September 1968, the beginning of the fourth year in which my husband and I were in the same department, the departmental recommendation for my reappointment for the subsequent academic year was rejected by the Chancellor, who alleged that "University policy quite clearly prohibits the contemporaneous appointment, within the same department, of close relatives." This rejection was sustained by the present Chancellor in opposition to numerous Faculty appeals.

      President Wood's assertion that the new guidelines "would definitely have created a different situation" in Mrs. Salzman's case implies that an "old" policy existed (prior to the Trustees' adoption on December 28 of its "new" policy) which prohibited my reappointment. This claim, the same as that made by both Chancellors, is completely false. There never has been any official policy established by Trustee vote prohibiting simultaneous employment of close relatives in the same department of the University.

      On the contrary, the practice established by Trustee action was to approve a limited number of dual appointments of couples in the same department, of which ours was one. This practice is described in the December 11, 1963 and June 19, 1967 minutes of the Trustee Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy (previously called the Committee on Faculty and Program of Study). At the June 1967 meeting, the Committee reaffirmed the ongoing practice in a discussion reported in the minutes as follows:

      "[The Provost next introduced the subject of nepotism, specifically appointment
      of man and wife in the same academic department.] . . . It was agreed that
      certain rare exceptions should be made from time to time involving unusually qualified
      husband and wife teams, both of whom are proven scholars and both of whom have
      held professional posts in other universities of quality."

      No vote was taken, nor did the full Board ever vote such a policy; but its actions established the practice.

      At a Meeting on my case on April 28, 1970, Chancellor Oswald Tippo of the Amherst campus, one of the responsible administrators who recommended our dual appointments in 1965, stated unequivocally that Trustee policy had not changed since the time we were appointed. The U Mass-Boston Tenure and Grievance Committee (TGC) in its unanimous report of December 2, 1970 on my case, found that

      " . . . because Trustee policy on dual appointments had not changed since the
      initial appointment, this non-reappointment notice constituted an unwarranted
      abrogation of the Trustee action in making the appointment."

      The TGC's recommendation that I be reappointed "as soon as possible" was rejected by the present Chancellor.

      President Wood's quoted statement that "Mrs. Salzman's case is not considered to be pending at the moment" is false. After determining that channels on campus had been exhausted, the Faculty, in its resolution of March 24, 1971, and the Senate, in its vote of April 8, 1971, appealed to the President and the Trustees to reappoint me. Neither the Faculty resolution nor the Senate action has been answered; both are still pending.

      Also, the President failed to answer the petitions of the National Organization of Women (NOW) of May 19, 1971 and September 29, 1971 and the public petition of scientists presented at the Trustee meeting of November 10, 1971 calling for my reappointment. These appeals are still pending.

      Furthermore, my own appeal to the President and Trustees is still pending because until now he has denied me access (and still does) to secret allegations against my husband and me in University files which I need to prepare my appeal.

      In closing, I ask every individual who is concerned with justice and the status of women in our society, to write to President Wood and ask him to cite the Trustee vote which prohibited my reappointment, and to insist, if no such vote exists, that I be reappointed at once.

[The sentence in square brackets was omitted from the original letter by the Globe.]