Members of the Educational Resources Group (ERG) debated yesterday whether to support the philosophy behind the restrictive nature of the core curriculum proposals released last week by Dean Rosovsky.

Many members of ERG said they felt ERG should reject the proposals because their enactment would greatly limit students' freedom of choice.

Other ERG members said the group should recommend more modest alterations to the core curriculum proposals--ones more likely to gain Faculty approval.

Dana Leifer '80, an ERG representative from Lowell House, said at the meeting, "Having ten specific areas is carrying it too far. Five areas is necessary, I think, but I have talked to many students who told me that they would not have come here had Harvard had these restrictions."

Matthew E. Fishman '80, an ERG representative from Currier, said, "We're simply not strong enough to say we reject the entire curriculum proposals. I realize that we [the students] are the ones to suffer in the long run, but Dean Rosovsky has the responsibility and he wants to make sure this thing works."

The Faculty Council will send copies of the 36-page report on the core curriculum to all House and undergraduate libraries, Victor P. Filipinni '80, an ERG and CUE member, said.

The members of ERG also passed a resolution to write a statement warning the Faculty to make sure adequate courses can be drawn up that satisfy the stipulations in the core report before the Faculty votes to approve the report's recommendations.