IDEAS & TRENDS; MEN'S CLUBS PRESSED TO OPEN DOORS FOR WOMEN

ITS facade bears credos vowing enlightenment through education. And inside the University Club, men are fighting to repel invaders.

As the forces of resistance prevail, some other members have given up. John L. Grant resigned as president, and other members quit the club, after a recent vote not to comply with a local law that would require the admission of women.

The balloting, in which 53 percent of the votes opposed compliance with the law, followed months of bitter debate among its 4,300 members and begins an adversarial relationship with the city. This week, in a step toward a hearing on the matter, the city plans to issue subpoenas for records of corporations that use the club or reimburse employees who do.

The case is being widely watched, because New York's antidiscrimination law is considered the strongest in the nation. Several cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, are developing similar legislation in the face of equally emotional opposition.

The measure, Local Law 63, prohibits discrimination by any club that is not ''distinctly private.'' A club is con sidered not distinctly private if it has more than 400 members, offers regular meal service and is used for the furtherance of business or as an extension of the workplace. That, explained Carol L. Ziegler, the Human Rights Commission's general counsel, is ''when they accept payment for functions by non-members, or reimbursement of members by their employers, or have open events where people pay at the door.''

''These are not hard and fast rules,'' Ms. Ziegler said, ''but when you have all three factors, is a club really private?''

The University Club's members are especially proud of their seven-story landmark building at Fifth Avenue and 54th Street. One evening last week, a fire blazed in the soaring main hall and a piano player tinkled genteel tunes in the Ladies Sitting Room. In a corner of the library, two men with yellow legal pads discussed a client.

Some members who voted against compliance with Local Law 63 said they did not oppose women as members but rather the city's telling them how to manage their club. Club officials did not return telephone calls. Three Targets

The club, along with the Century Association and the Union League Club, was found to be in probable violation of the law after an investigation by the Human Rights Commission last January. The city had hoped that the three clubs would quietly decide to admit women and that others would follow suit. That has not happened.

The New York State Club Assocation has challenged Local Law 63, maintaining that it interferes with the constitutional right of association, and is awaiting a decision from the Court of Appeals. The University and Union League clubs have also brought suits in Federal court, which the city has moved to dismiss on the ground that the matter is already being litigated.

The directors of the 139-year-old Century Association have agreed to to admit women if the law is upheld. But several clubs, including the Brook and the Knickerbocker, have acted to reinforce their ''distinctly private'' status by asking members to pay by personal check and attest that they are not being reimbursed by employers. ''The more clubs have resisted,'' Ms. Ziegler said, ''the more we're drawn into what we didn't want to get into. We don't want to be auditors.'' Philadelphia, the only other major city with legislation concerning private clubs, took another approach. Its ordinance requires that all city contracts forbid the contractor to reimburse employees' fees in any exclusionary organization. At issue, said City Solicitor Handsel B. Minyard, ''is whether monies received from city contracts are then used to pay dues or expenses in those clubs.'' Last May, while the measure was before the City Council, the Union League Club voted to admit women.

The Detroit Athletic Club admitted its first two women members last month after several corporations refused to reimburse dues for their executives because of the all-male policy.

The San Francisco Bar Association has passed a resolution urging law firms not to pay expenses or dues in private clubs that have exclusionary practices. ''There's no question that private clubs act to the detriment of my career,'' said Drucilla S. Ramey, the association's executive director. Ms. Ramey, a graduate of Harvard and Yale, said a guard barred her from a restricted floor of the University Club when she was with a client.

One step being explored by Los Angeles is revoking clubs' liquor licenses. ''You can revoke a license if it's contrary to the public welfare,'' said Mark D. Fabiani, counsel to Mayor Tom Bradley. ''Discrimination is contrary to the public welfare.'' He also said that ''we've developed an ordinance quite similar to New York's.''

In New York, Ms. Ziegler said, ''the push has been for voluntary compliance, and we still hope they'll do that.'' If not, the law provides for an administrative trial; if a violation is found, a court order might require the admission of women.