Both are correct, it just depends on who/what is doing the verb (sucking/blowing). In english we would call this the subject of the sentence.
Consider the following scenario. You have two large tanks, sitting in your garage (presumably on planet earth). One has a vacuum in it at 0.01 ATM, the other has some pressurized air, lets say at 10 ATM. The two tanks are connected by a sealed pipe with a valve in the middle.
Now lets say you open this valve so air now starts rushing from the pressurized tank into the vacuum tank. Is the air being sucked or blown? Well the answer is, both, just depends how you construct the sentence. You could say "The low pressure tank sucked the air out of the high pressure tank". Alternatively, you could also say "The high pressure tank blew the air into the low pressure tank". Both statements are true, the verb just changes depending on what is doing the action (the subject).
So back to your original Star Trek quote. Both are right. The people were sucked out by the vacuum of space. But it is also true that the people were blown out into space by the space station.
Technical Physics Explanation
The technical definition of suck, or rather suction, is according to wikipedia:
Suction is the colloquial term to describe the air pressure differential between areas... When the pressure in one part of a system is reduced relative to another. 
Similarly the dictionary defines it as such:
The force that, by a pressure differential, attracts a substance or object to the region of lower pressure. 
In other words, suck, or suction, does not suggest that the force comes from the low pressure side, only that the force exerted on the object results in an attractive force towards the side with the lower pressure.
In the case of people, or a space door hatch, it satisfies these definitions, there is a pressure differential across them and from the perspective of the low pressure side, since objects are attracted to it by the produced force, there is suction.
Most of the answers which suggest the "motive force" is coming from the high pressure side is true, but this ignores the definition of the word suction, which does not in anyway rely on where the force comes from but only its direction.
In fact, for that reason, the word "suck" is often used in scientific literature and is quite acceptable, despite Mr. Data's objections.
Examples in Scientific Literature
An Elementary Treatment of the Reverse Sprinkler
In an attempt to back up my claim that both suck and blow are equally valid I tried to find some scholarly source on the matter. Ultimately this is an English question, and I could not find a scholarly English source. I was however able to find a peer-reviewed physics paper published on arXiv, a well respected journal, that used similar language.
Here are some quotes from the paper:
the box will turn in the direction of the long arrow when blown into and in the direction of the short arrow when sucked on.
Steam bubbles cause water to be alternately blown out of and sucked into the tank.
If, therefore, an elastic ball, which has one escape-tube, be attached to the reaction-wheel, in the manner represented in [Fig. 8(a)], and be alternately squeezed so that the same quantity of air is by turns blown out and sucked in, the wheel will continue to revolve rapidly in the same direction as it did in the case in which we blew into it
All of the above quotes can be found in the following physics paper:
Study of Combined Rice Husk Gasifier Thermoelectric Generator
Similarly here is another separate paper, also peer-reviewed, using suck and blow as equally valid terms in the paper.
A blower was used to suck the ambient air to cool the heat sink and blow the air from the heat sink to the reactor of the gasifier.
Which can be found in this paper:
As we can see in the above again suck and blow are both used in a scholarly scientific context with peer review. So clearly both terms are considered acceptable and correct within the scientific community.
I think its a safe bet that if multiple research scientists and physicists can publish papers and have it pass peer-review using blow and suck, then either word, when in agreement with the subject (as described above), is acceptable to use. Clearly the scientific community finds both words equally valid and I think it's common sense that these are valid English usages as well.