THE MAJORITY opinion editorial on CHUL's refusal to sponsor a student referendum on ROTC voices its abhorrence of that decision in grandiose and self-righteous terms. It brands the committee as "shortsighted, dangerous and anti-democratic," "elitist" and "incredibly arrogant." In a devastating conclusion, it calls on students to vote out those CHUL members "who tried to decide on which matters students should be allowed to express their opinion."

Unfortunately, the editorial doesn't address the situation that confronted the CHUL on October 10. Instead, it conjures up two new issues that were not even mentioned by the two New American Movement (NAM) spokesmen at that meeting: Harvard's broader relationship with the American military, and "President Bok's effectiveness in representing the sentiments of this University."

NAM asked the CHUL to sponsor a student poll on the return of ROTC to the Harvard campus, citing President Bok's remarks to alumni in June and agitation over the issue at neighboring universities. NAM submitted petitions signed by 2500 undergraduates in support of its request, but a significant portion of those signatures must have been prompted by NAM's contention that ROTC is indeed an issue at Harvard.

In fact, ROTC is not an issue because there are simply no plans to revive it here. Dean Rosovsky told the CHUL that not a single member of the Faculty has broached the subject with him and that he has detected no support for ROTC's return. He added that neither he nor President Bok would even attempt to have the matter discussed by the Faculty.

Ignoring reality, the majority editorial bewails the rejection of the referendum in more abstract terms. It argues that the poll would have sampled student opinion on Harvard's research for the American military and influenced Bok and the Corporation in their dealings with the Defense Department; but it doesn't explain how or why that opinion would have emerged from a vote on ROTC.

Even more naive is the editorial's scolding of Bok. The president of a major university wears many hats, and like a politician, not all of what he says should be taken at face value. While Bok's remarks in June may have been ill-advised, it would be absurd to hold a student referendum to administer a collective slap on the wrist.

No one on the CHUL has or seeks the right to limit what undergraduates may think about. It was the committee's opinion that the student body wants no part of ROTC. Since this is also the present attitude of the Faculty, a referendum on the subject would be unnecessary and possibly destructive. The CHUL is not guilty of letting sleeping dogs lie: Its decision was not to unearth a rotting corpse.