The Committee to End Discrimination by Harvard yesterday criticized President Neil L. Rudenstine's compromise solution on University funding of ROTC, saying the proposed plan still violates Harvard's non-discriminatory policy.

The committee, formed in October to urge Harvard to end all forms of support for the ROTC program, consists of several faculty members, alumni and representatives from Harvard's undergraduate and graduate bisexual, gay and lesbian organizations.

In a memo distributed yesterday, the committee called for an end to Harvard's support for a "discriminatory" program. They presented an alternative solution which would further remove Harvard from the funding process.

The memo was given to Acting President Albert Carnesale and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Jeremy R. Knowles, and will also be distributed to the entire Faculty by today, said Thomas A. Gerace '93, chair of the committee.

Rudenstine recommended in a report released last week and dated November 23 that Harvard students continue to be allowed to participate in MIT's ROTC program, but without direct University funding.

In the report, Rudenstine, who himself served in Army ROTC, called for the University to create a pool of money funded by alumni contributions that would pay the ROTC administrative fee to MIT.

The University currently pays MIT about $130,000 annually out of the FAS budget to finance the roughly 70 students enrolled in MIT's ROTC program.

But the report does not specify how the alumni fund will be administered, and ROTC opponents wonder whether Harvard will truly be removed if the money still passes through the University.

"The current ROTC payments, made by Harvard from its unrestrict- ed general funds, violate the University's non-discrimination policy and are wrong," the committee's memo said.

"The proposed ROTC payments, to be made by Harvard from a 'special purpose account,' likewise violate the University's non-discrimination policy and are wrong," the statement said.

The statement continued: "The change suggested by President Rudenstine is purely technical, and does not end Harvard's continuing support of discrimination against its own students."

The committee suggested that Harvard end funding of ROTC by July 1, 1995, but allow the alumni who have volunteered to pay the administrative fee to do so, "either directly or through an intermediary not associated with Harvard," provided that Harvard does not "facilitate nor obstruct such arrangements."

The alternative proposal also requests that the University implement the non-financial recommendations of a Faculty-endorsed report which recommended that Harvard cut all ties with ROTC. The report was written in October 1992 by a faculty committee on ROTC chaired by Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53.

The Verba report recommended that Harvard end all forms of non-financial support for ROTC, such as holding commissioning ceremonies on Harvard grounds and printing the names of ROTC graduates in Commencement Day publications.

Rudenstine's report does not mention the non-financial support that Harvard currently provides for ROTC.

Referring to non-financial support of ROTC, Verba said Friday, "Our committee recommended removing all support by the University and [not doing so] would, I think, be inconsistent [with Harvard's non-discriminatory policy]."

In an interview last night, Gerace said the committee is trying to garner support from the Faculty as a means of influencing the Corporation's eventual decision on Rudenstine's recommendation.

The Corporation, Harvard's seven-member senior governing board, is the only body that can approve Rudenstine's recommendation so it becomes official University policy.

"The committee hopes the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will endorse our report at their meeting next week," Gerace said. "We expect that [the Faculty] will see our report as a viable alternative."

Knowles said yesterday that he expects Rudenstine's recommendation to be "very thoroughly discussed" at the Faculty meeting.

"There well may be a motion to vote on it," he said. "There are many important issues here and the Faculty should have the opportunity to discuss them.