When the State College Borough Council reviews a revised fair housing ordinance tonight, it will not find a strong proposal designed to protect the community. The new proposal succeeds only in lumping every borough resident and University student under an ambiguous, generally ineffective housing law.

The ordinance's vagueness is its downfall. Under the ordinance, proposed by council member Peter Lang, property owners could disqualify potential tenants on the basis of negative past rental history and inability to pay.

Such an all-encompassing law would not sufficiently protect individuals and non-traditional couples from unfair housing practices. Rather, it leaves the door open for continued discrimination.

Negative past rental history offers a wide range of interpretation to property owners for rejecting prospective tenants. Without a fair housing ordinance specifically outlining protected groups, property owners can deny people housing without sufficient reason.

The original fair housing proposal insured protection against discriminator y housing practices as defined by state and federal laws. Mayor Arnold Addison wisely vetoed that proposal because it neglected to protect residents on the basis of their sexual orientation, source of income, marital status or place of birth.

Opponents of an ordinance that specifically lists each group to be included under a fair housing proposal apparently fear that some individuals may receive special privileges. Gay men, lesbians and unwed couples do not deserve special protection under the law; they do deserve equal protection.

About 10 percent of gay men and 14 percent of lesbians attempting to purchase, rent or pay mortgage on a property have experienced some form of housing discrimination. Those figures, released by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in June 1988, are based upon discrimination complaints reported from all areas of Pennsylvania except Philadelphia.

When the borough was asked to revise the original proposal, the intent was to protect diversity, not mask it. This revision appears to be an effort to sidestep a sensitive issue that many community and council members might prefer to ignore. But at a time when the borough should be acting on its claims to protect true diversity, its elected leaders need to take stronger actions.

Many community residents seem to think the newest fair housing proposal is better than nothing. However, this issue demands more attention and bolder steps.

Council members would be doing a disservice to borough residents if they were to pass this ordinance.