BOSTON--Harvard Law School students who brought a landmark discrimination suit against the University asked the state's highest court yesterday for legal authority to go forward with their case.

Members of the Coalition for Civil Rights (CCR) are charging that Harvard discriminates against women and minorities in faculty hiring, and compared their case yesterday to the 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education which declared segregation illegal in public schools.

Beginning the students' 15-minute oral argument, Caroline C. Wittcoff contended that Harvard's scarcity of women and minority faculty is harmful and discriminatory to women and minorities in the student body.

"Harvard's discrimination teaches women and minority students the devastating message that while we are good enough to sit in the classroom, we will never be good enough to stand in the front and teach," said Wittcoff, a third-year student at the Law School.

Later in the proceeding, Laura E. Hankins, the other student to present arguments for CCR, added that Harvard fails to deliver on a contract with students not to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

The student plaintiffs have said that under the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act of 1990, the relationship between students and the University can be considered contractually binding.

The students, who first launched their case inNovember 1990, were dismissed last February by theMassachusetts Superior Court, which acceptedHarvard's argument that students do not have theright to sue their school.

That right, called standing, was the focus ofyesterday's trial at the Supreme Judicial Court.If the students win they will be able to proceedwith discovery, which will allow them access toUniversity files regarding faculty hiring.

Discovery would also allow students to subpoenaHarvard professors and administrators to testifyin the case.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan, rebuttingthe students in court yesterday, arguing thatthere is no legal precedent for their case.

"Courts should not sit in referee disputesamong students as to what they think theuniversity should be doing," Ryan said.

Ryan also rejected the Brown analogy.

"This case is not Brown v. Board ofEducation," Ryan said. "Rose Parks is not inthis courtroom."

Ryan also said that granting discovery wouldgive students access to "through, searching,humbling records," arguing that would be improperbecause students are not victims of the allegeddiscrimination.

`Legally Cognizable Harms'

The students argued in a packed Suffolk Countycourtroom that they were the victims of "legallycognizable harms" and discrimination. Wittcoffalso maintained that the entire Law School studentbody is harmed by its lack of association withwomen and minority faculty members.