On the eve of a decision about the fate of President Neil L. Rudenstine's ROTC compromise proposal, alumni across the nation are evaluating the plan.

In a proposal issued last November and scheduled to be discussed by Harvard's governing boards this month, Rudenstine proposed paying for the program with unsolicited alumni donations earmarked for ROTC.

Rudenstine might be dismayed to know that many alumni aren't happy with the proposal.

Then again, he might be delighted to know that many aren't upset with it.

Indeed, some alumni agree with sentiments expressed by a majority of Harvard's faculty--that any ties to ROTC violate the University's non-discrimination policy because of the military's ban on gays.

Others agree with the opinions of Harvard's administration, who say that the proposal is the best compromise between a total elimination of the ROTC option and an endorsement of a limited ROTC program.

But as the Corporation--Harvard's most powerful governing board--prepares to pass judgment on the proposal, key figures from Harvard's stormy history with the program react almost uniformly when asked about Rudenstine's proposal.

Alumni say they are unaware of the program and unable to make a judgment about it.

The Report

Rudenstine's November 23 Statement on ROTC was an attempt to resolve the most recent in a long series of objections to Harvard's involvement with ROTC.

The latest round began in 1989, when David E. Carney '89 was booted from ROTC after admitting his homosexuality to a commanding officer.

In 1990, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Faculty Council endorsed a statement regarding exclusion of gay students from ROTC service.

The statement recommended that Harvard sever ties to the program in two years if the federal government did not sufficiently resolve the "issues of discrimination."

In 1992, a student-faculty committee, chaired by Pforzheimer University Professor Sidney Verba '53, also recommended that the University eliminate the ROTC option if the military's policy on gays didn't change.

But faculty members decided last year that the current government policy of "don't ask, don't tell" continues to violate Harvard's non-discriminatory policy.