The Supreme Court may not be listening, but Harvard Law students are talking.

In a special referendum yesterday, almost 75 percent of some 1000 law students polled approved a resolution imploring "the Supreme Court to protect and uphold the hard-won civil rights gained through years of sacrifice and struggle." The resolution also asked Congress and President Bush "to restore the protection of these rights."

"The vote shows that we are willing to speak out for civil rights and willing to support Congress in battling the Court's civil rights setbacks," said John Bonifaz, a first-year law student who co-wrote the referendum with Jason Adkins, a second-year student.

Nearly two-thirds of the student body participated in the vote--an "unprecedented" turnout for such a resolution, according to organizers. They said it was indicative of the growing discontent nationwide with the Court's recent turn to the right.

"We didn't just say yes to this referendum in a vacuum," Bonifaz said. "Thousands of people across the country have voiced their opinions that what the Court is doing is outrageous. With this vote, we have only added our voices to the protest."

Bonifaz and others said students were angry about a slew of recent 5-4 high court decisions, which marked a major shift in the court's posture towards personal liberties and civil rights. Among the cases they cited were Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which allowed greater restriction of abortion rights, and Patterson v. McClean Credit Union, which limited the scope of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

"The decisions in the Supreme Court are political, not strictly legal," said Trent Norris, a first-year law student. "The justices make an effort to make all decisions sound legal. The fact is, they are politically motivated."

Bonifaz said the student vote was particularly important because Congress this spring is expected to consider new legislation--the 1990 Civil Rights Act introduced by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '52-54 (D-Mass.)--addressing those decisions.

`Shocked'

Several students who voted against the resolution, however, were skeptical about its potential impact.

"I would be shocked if someone on the floor of the Senate or House said `We need this bill because Harvard Law School students said we need it,'" said Jim Flynn, a third-year law student.

Flynn said he did not think the Law School should be a lobbying group, and that the resolution's wording was too broad.