Lee Professor of Economics Hendrik S. Houthakker said the vote could be seen as a "slap in the face" for Powell and said it "opens up a new area of discrimination, namely against those students who take part in ROTC." He also tried, and failed, to table the report.

Mansfield's stance found some support, as the Faculty voted to drop the report's provision encouraging participation in national debate. But a number of faculty members stood strongly against Houthakker and Mansfield.

Equating the loss of financial aid to ROTC students with the military's ban on gays "lacks a sense of moral proportion that strikes me as disgraceful," said Professor of Afro-American Studies K. Anthony Appiah.

The report passed by a strong majority, but there was little hope the question was resolved forever. In fact, the Faculty vote left the decision where it was from the beginning, with Knowles and Rudenstine.

"The vote, in a way, doesn't change anything," said Verba. "I think it does have symbolic significance."

The vote sent a message, Knowles said, one noted by Rudenstine and himself. But the truth, admitted by nearly everybody involved in the drawn-out ROTC debate, is that pending a move by the Clinton administration, the issue is yet again in stasis.

And even after a Clinton decision which seems unlikely to take a bold stance on either side of the issue, Harvard's ROTC woes are probably just going to drag on.