In fact, to be consistent, Harvard should refuse to accept money from all organizations that discriminate on the basis of sex, religion, race or sexual orientation. That means nixing those "prizes" for descendants of white students from old New England families and any church-based scholarships.

Now the University incorporates such scholarships into financial aid packages, often providing grants and low-interest loans as part of such packages. In theory, admissions are "need-blind" since Harvard helps students pay what they cannot afford.

Refusing to accept discriminatory scholarships would increase Harvard's financial burden to provide need-blind admissions. But the ideal is worth the cost. The University should make it clear to all prospective students that Harvard will cover costs that discriminatory funding might otherwise pay.

In other words, no students--not even the poorest--should be able to say that because Harvard opposes bias against homosexuals (or anyone else) by ending discriminatory scholarships, the University effectively prevents them from attending.

And the need-blind admissions funds should be generous enough to live up to their name. Some students complain that Harvard offers their parents impossible choices. Sure, those students say, they could accept the financial aid packages offered them--but only if their parents remortgaged their homes.

WHAT ABOUT race-based scholarships for minorities? And how about class-based monies for poor students? Recently, the Bush administration said that minority funding is illegal because it discriminates on the basis of race.

In a narrow sense, they are correct. Indeed, this conclusion would flow from my general standard of nondiscrimination as described above. But draconian meritocratic standards do not account for past and present bias. Minorities who face the psychological, economic and social barriers of societal bias cannot be held to the Bushies' level-playing-field argument. Thus minority scholarships should be allowed.

Still, giving a scholarship to a Black son of a Harvard grad from Andover and not to a poor white from a rural working class family (Who faces similar psychological, economic and social barriers) seems skewed.

So if Harvard is truly to increase fairness, it should in addition to allowing minority funds accept such class-based scholarships as those given by unions or corporations for children of workers.

AND ALL THIS should be done soon. The Faculty Council voted nearly two years ago to levy the ultimatum against the Department of Defense. That should have been plenty of time to come up with a funding plan to allow needy ROTC students to attend the school (i.e., deepening the need-blind admissions coffers).

The other major issue--what to do about the loss of ideological diversity accrued when some students choose ROTC over Harvard--seems like a specious one.

First of all, as an Undergraduate Council study found last fall, only a few ROTC students would have chosen not to attend Harvard solely because it had banned ROTC completely. In other words, given University funding to make up for what would be unacceptable ROTC money, most would have come to Harvard.

Of those who would not, their loss is a price I'm willing to pay to oppose the military's biased policy. It's not these particular ROTC students' ideology I oppose--but if they positively cannot attend Harvard just because they won't be able to play soldier here, I can stand to lose them. Opposing vicious state-imposed discrimination is more important.

Harvard has dragged its feet long enough on the ROTC issue. And now is the time to reject other discriminatory scholarships as well. Otherwise, Harvard's commitment to fairness will be little more than window dressing.