The University has not taken adequate steps to publicize its new all-encompassing anti-discrimination policy, students told a panel of three University administrators last night.

In addition to proposing a publicity campaign, the students, participants in a forum sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Students Association (GLSA), suggested that the University specifically consider the anti-discrimination policy when hiring residential tutors and house masters in order to create a better living environment for gays at Harvard.

Students were responding to a policy adopted by Harvard last July that prohibits discrimination against any University affiliate on numerous bases, including sexual orientation, political beliefs and physical disability. Harvard's decision followed similar legislation by the City of Cambridge.

Following an organized lobbying effort, in which the College's gay and lesbian community campaigned for formal measures prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the University put into effect a three-pronged process for dealing with violations of the policy, said Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57, a member of last night's panel.

Jewett was joined by Assistant Dean of the Faculty Marlyn M. Lewis '70 and Professor of Philosophy Warren D. Goldfarb '69.

A student could bring an informal complaint to the attention of a house officer such as a senior tutor, who would proceed to work on the case with the student involved, Jewett said that because students are not well informed about the new legislation, it would be impossible for them to follow any of those routes.

Or, since a violation could be interpreted as an infraction of the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities could investigate a case, Jewett said.

But forum participants last night said that since students are not well informed about the new legislation, it would be impossible for them to follow any of the above routes.

"I think a lot of gay people who

The committee set a deadline for applicationsto the internship program for the last day inJanuary. Letters the program had been distributedto South Africans and contacts, and news of theprogram was spread about. Harvard got responsesfrom several organizations and a list of ninepotential opportunities was made available toapplicants at the Office of Career Services (OCS).Although the University had not begun to reallycompile a list of internships, it was alreadyaccepting applications.

The mess became public last week when theSouthern Africa Solidarity Committee (SASC), apro-divestment student group on campus, released areport charging that the internship program was"structurally flawed" because the Universityfailed to consult with Black South Africans"representng real political constituencies" whensetting up the program.

"The end result of this is a program that, if[Harvard] goes ahead with the listed internships,it will harm everyone: Black South Africans,Harvard University, and people... who are put inmisleading situations and return to the UnitedStates with a distorted picture of life in SouthAfrica and of the state of South African society,"the report charges, after exhaustively attackingthe value of internship possibilities listed atOCS.

Premature, misconceived, and destructive werethe words Vice President and General CounselDaniel Steiner '54, chairman of the administeringcommittee, used to describe the report. To Steinerand the committee, the program was no where nearset up and thus could not be criticized.

The Steiner committee, which Bok set up toadminister the fund and which first met inOctober, began to set up the program byinstructing Eliot House Master Alan E. Heimert, amember of the committee, to distribute literatureto South Africans involved in educationalenterprises there. As the responses from SouthAfrica trickled in, Harvard began to recruitstudents to the program.

As these dual efforts of creating studentinterest and getting internship opportunitiesproceeded, the committee resolved to wait toevaluate both student and institutional responseuntil March, when Steiner would have returned froma fact-finding tour of South Africa. But anorganizational slip-up side tracked the program.