Alleged American intervention in the Cuban counter-revolution evoked sharp criticism yesterday from members of the University faculty on both moral and practical levers.

As reports of the failure of the Cuban version of the "strategy of peace" circulated, the American role in the counter-revolution was denounced as "a disastrous mistake," a "terrible policy decision," and a "reckless, irresponsible idea."

"The move was clearly a disastrous mistake," Luigi R. Einaudi '57, teaching fellow in Government, declared. Whether the United States was behind the movement or not, he pointed out, "it appeared to the world that we were." He claimed that now "revulsion in Latin America against the U.S." would gravely jeopardize the Administration's constructive plans for Latin America.

"This was a reckless and irresponsible idea, bound to provoke unfavorable opinion abroad, particularly in Asia and Africa," H. Stuart Hughes, professor of History, stated.

Describing himself as a Kennedy "critic from the left," Hughes credited the President with having rejected the idea of direct intervention, but reported that fear of such rash action on Kennedy's part had originally prompted his fall statement that he could vote for Kennedy "only with fear and trembling.'