This week's Supreme Court ruling limiting a federal law barring sex discrimination in education has reopened the issue of women in college athletics. Although the ruling is not expected to affect Harvard or other Ivy League schools that grant roughly equal funding to men's and women's sports, the decision could trigger setbacks for women's athletics elsewhere.

Tuesday's Court ruling stated that, under Title IX of the Education Amendment Act of 1972, only the programs that receive direct federal aid are subject to the anti-discrimination provisions of the law. Previous interpretations of the law called for a withdrawal of all federal funds from universities that discriminate in any of their programs or policies.

Leaders of women's groups have denounced the decision, saying it will give rise to unequal treatment in areas that do not receive federal funds. Opponents of the ruling fear the interpretation will have its greatest impact on women's athletics, where the commitment to equal treatment is often lacking.

Harvard officials have said the ruling will have little impact here because the University is committed to nondiscriminatory treatment regardless of federal funding requirements.

Harvard Committed

"I don't think the decision is going to have any effect on Harvard because the University has a strong commitment to equality," General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 said yesterday.

Director of Athletics John P. Reardon '60 yesterday agreed, saying Harvard athletic officials "have made the effort to have a strong program" for women's sports.

The Athletic Department conducts yearly audits to compare outlays for men's and women's sports, Associate Director of Athletics Patricia Miller said yesterday, adding that Harvard has evaluated its performance in promoting women's sports for the past eight years.

Harvard has significantly upgraded these programs during that time, she said.

Trip To the Dentist

But Harvard officials agreed that not all schools share this commitment to women's athletics. Reardon noted that many discrimination claims under Title IX have concerned discrimination in sports programs. "In many cases, it's been like pulling teeth to get schools to improve women's sports," he added.

Calling the decision a "setback" for women's rights, Miller said the new interpretation may cause some universities to backslide on women's athletics. But she added that general attitudes toward equality for women's sports have advanced significantly over the past decade.

The ruling is most likely to affect large universities that invest a lot of money is men's sports, such as football and basketball. Under the earlier interpretations of Title IX, these schools were required to provide similar funding and treatment for men's and women's athletics or risk losing all federal funds. But under the recent decision, shifting funds away from women's sports would jeopardize federal aid to other university programs. As a result critics of ht decision contend, university with limited athletic budgets may be inclined to cut back on women's programs.

Steiner said Harvard, like other Ivy League schools, have faced fewer financial pressures under Title IX because of its more limited athletic programs. "Here, we are not into big-time athletics, "he said, adding, "We don't spend large sums of money on athletic scholarships and so Title Ix hasn't pinched us."

Narrow Impact?

But education officials have said they are unclear if the Court's ruling in Grove City v. Bell will have the broad impact suggested by some.

The Supreme Court case resulted in a "technical and narrow decision," said Shelton Steinbnch, general counsel for the American Counsel of Education. "With the growing power of women faculty administrators, the ruling should not make a bit of difference," he added.

And Margot Polivy, general counsel for the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women, said. "Legally, this is a very small case that unfortunately has captured the attention of people who would like to broaden its meaning."

The Court decided that schools which receive only federal financial aid for students are unique, Polivy said.

"I can't say whether the application will be broadened as the press suggests it will be," she said, adding. "It would be premature to start reading tea leaves.