In an abrupt reversal, members of the student-faculty committee studying the controversial CUE Guide yesterday voiced support for continued faculty and administrative oversight of the book's editorial policy.

Members of the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE), which oversees the CUE Guide, said they would support joint student and faculty control of the publication's policies if written rules are adopted prohibiting official interference in the actual preparation of the book.

Yesterday's apparent consensus came two weeks after committee members unanimously expressed tentative support for a proposal that would have transferred ultimate control of the guide from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to the Undergraduate Council.

The council's Academics Committee last week endorsed that proposal, which would have required continued faculty funding of the publication at an annual cost of roughly $50,000.

The Faculty Council, the faculty's 19-member steering committee, is reviewing the book following charges that administrators censored the 1985-86 edition by forcing the deletion of certain negative references to professors. The Faculty Council last month asked the CUE to study questions about the guide's editorial freedom and its unintended use by some departments as an official measure of teaching performance.

Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education Steven E. Ozment, who chairs the committee and advises the book's student editors, said the CUE would likely finalize recommendations to the Faculty Council at its next meeting in two weeks.

The issue of the guide's abuse by departments was not addressed at yesterday's meeting. That issue will be taken up separately next semester, Ozment said after the meeting.

One of the main advantages originally cited in the Undergraduate Council plan was that it would remove the University's stamp of authority from the book, making it less susceptible to misuse by officials evaluating instructors.

At the outset of yesterday's meeting, Ozment argued against excluding faculty from the book's editorial policy-making. Describing the recent dispute over the guide's editorial freedom as an aberration, Ozment said professors and students have cooperated effectively on the book throughout its history.

"Had not a few administrators decided to play Keystone Cops last summer, I'm confident that the same would have been true for the 1985-86 CUE Guide," Ozment said. "Some people decided to fix something that wasn't broke, and in the process, they broke it."

Ozment said it was "extremely likely" that the faculty would not agree to continue funding the book if it had no control over the book's content.

He also questioned whether the guide's quality would deteriorate if it were completely administered by students.

The most objectionable solution proposed, the idea of submitting the book to review by an administrative or faculty committee each year, was "dead in the water" and "not a viable option," Ozment said.

Former CUE Guide Editor-in-Chief Barbara S. Okun '86, who was asked to attend the meeting, said her main concern is that the book's staff have the freedom to report faithfully students' responses to the CUE Guide course evaluation questionnaires.

"Whether that's through the Undergraduate Council or the office of the associate dean for undergraduate education is not of major concern to us," Okun said.

Other students present said they could be satisfied with rules prohibiting officials from exercising prior restraint over the book.

"I'm talking about writing down that nobody's supposed to screw around with us," said John S. Lilly '87, the guide's new editor.

Melissa S. Lane '88, the head of the Undergraduate Council's delegation to the CUE and the author of a report favoring council control of the book, also said that less drastic reforms might be acceptable