It would be anticlimactic, to say the least.

After years of vehement protests and angry demonstrations, after months of discussion and delays, the issue of ROTC on campus could be determined by the American public, not the Faculty Council.

When voters choose a president, they will likely also choose a prepackaged policy regarding the military's ban on gays--the focal point of the ROTC debate.

Democrat contender Gov. Bill Clinton has decried the ban as a violation of homosexuals' civil rights. He promises to reverse the policy if elected.

"Bill Clinton will issue executive orders to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians from military or foreign service," read the opening lines of a Clinton policy sheet on issues of concern to gays and lesbians.

The Republican platform, on the other hand, upholds the ban: "We support the continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military as a matter of good order and discipline."

The GOP plank violates Harvard's policy of nondiscrimination. And ROTC opponents say this is reason enough to keep the program off campus.

The ROTC debate did not always center on the military's treatment of gays and lesbians. In fact, when vehement protesters helped to force the organization off campus in the late 1960s, they were concerned with Harvard's ties to the military industrial complex.

Professor of Law Daniel J. Meltzer '72, who was a Harvard undergraduate during the first ROTC debates, says students and professors also worried about academic questions raised by the program. They debated whether ROTC instructors should receive faculty status, and whether ROTC courses should count for Harvard credit.

In the wake of these debates, the Faculty in 1969 eliminated the Harvard program altogether. In 1976, it revamped its policy to form Harvard's current relationship with ROTC, whereby cadets enroll in the ROTC program at MIT.

The faculty committee is now considering whether to recommend severing all ties with ROTC, a step well beyond removing the program from campus.

But in the current controversy, general suspicion and dislike of the military has all but disappeared as an issue.

Few people at Harvard bear any grudge against the Department of Defense per se, says Meltzer, who sits on the student-faculty committee on ROTC. Otherwise, the University might be obliged to reconsider the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Department of Defense grants and fellowships it receives each year.

And many supporters of the status quo interviewed by the committee have cited economics to bolster their argument: that eliminating ROTC scholarships would prevent some financially strapped students from attending Harvard at all.

"The consensus on the committee is that we would like to present the option for Harvard students to...participate in ROTC" if the program complies with the nondiscrimination policy, Meltzer says.

Since Harvard's dispute with ROTC comes down to the ban on gays, Clinton's election--and an elimination of the ban--would seem to settle the controversy. It may even open the gates for the program's physical return to campus.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 says he thinks ROTC will remain off campus regardless of the presidential election, due to lack of space and lack of widespread interest.

"My own guess would be that the military would be unlikely to Balkanize and have chapters at all the schools," Jewett says.

Cuts in military spending may also make ROTC less likely to open another chapter, Jewett says.

Still, the ban's elimination might pave a new path for the program, and would certainly eliminate most opposition to it.

A presidential election is difficult to predict. Rather than wait, ROTC committee members say they will press forward with a recommendation to the Faculty.

That recommendation--and the Faculty's decision--is already months late. In 1990, the Faculty Council set an ultimatum: if the ban was not removed by May 1992, Harvard would sever all ties. Period.

But when Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles assumed office last year, he declared the ultimatum invalid and appointed a committee to study the issue.

Committee members hoped to present a report at the end of last year, but appealed for more time in the spring.

Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53, who chairs the committee, says he hopes to present a recommendation well before the election.

"We really are aiming for the beginning of the fall," he says, estimating that a report will be completed in late September or early October.

"If we think we have a set of recommendations that makes sense, there's no reason to wait on those," Meltzer says, especially since the Democrats are not certain to adhere to a campaign pledge.

Committee members are drifting back into town, and Verba says he will soon call a meeting. The Harvard faculty, it seems, is eager to have its say in the issue. Ultimately, though, that say may be less than significant.

Joe Mathews contributed to the reporting of this article.