Groups representing Jewish faculty and students at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) are pushing back against a federal investigation they say risks undermining privacy, safety, and academic freedom, even as it purports to address antisemitism on campus.
The dispute centers on a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as part of an investigation into alleged antisemitic conduct at Penn. According to a recent report by Reuters, the EEOC has sought detailed personal information, including lists of members of Jewish-related campus organizations and the names of employees affiliated with the university’s Jewish Studies Program. Penn has said it is cooperating with the investigation but has refused to turn over what it characterizes as sensitive personal data.
That refusal prompted the EEOC to file suit in November, arguing that the university has withheld information necessary to determine whether Jewish employees were exposed to antisemitic conduct and whether Penn’s response met its obligations under federal anti-discrimination law. The commission has not accused the university of violating the law but said it cannot complete its inquiry without the requested records.
On Tuesday, several groups representing Jewish faculty and students moved to intervene in the case in federal court, seeking to block enforcement of the subpoena. In their filing, the groups argued that compelled disclosure would place individuals at risk and could have a chilling effect on participation in Jewish campus life. “Compiling and turning over to the government ‘lists of Jews’ conjures a terrifying history,” their lawyers wrote, according to Reuters.
Penn echoed those concerns in a statement cited by the news outlet. “Violating their privacy and trust is antithetical to ensuring Penn’s Jewish community feels protected and safe,” a university spokesperson said.
The pushback also reflects broader unease within higher education about the federal government’s expanding scrutiny of campus speech and protest, particularly following demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas war. Penn, like many universities, has faced sustained political pressure over its handling of protests and allegations of antisemitism. Former Penn President Liz Magill resigned in December 2023 after a contentious congressional hearing on campus antisemitism, a moment that intensified national debate over government oversight of universities.
In a November 19 statement, the Penn chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) said it supported the administration’s refusal to comply with the EEOC’s demands. The executive committee wrote that the investigation began in December 2023, when the EEOC alleged “a pattern or practice of harassment based on national origin, religion, and/or race against Jewish employees, in violation of Title VII” of the Civil Rights Act.
While emphasizing that antisemitism must be addressed, the AAUP-Penn leadership sharply criticized the scope of the subpoena. The requested materials, the statement said, included “the identities and personal information of complainants who made confidential reports of antisemitism,” as well as membership lists and contact details for Jewish organizations and participants in university listening sessions and surveys. “Historically, allowing regimes to collect lists of Jewish people has not boded well for their safety,” the statement warned.
The case also reflects a broader pattern that has emerged under the Trump administration, in which federal antisemitism investigations have increasingly been paired with funding threats and aggressive enforcement tactics aimed at pressuring colleges and universities into compliance. Civil rights probes, critics argue, have been used not only to address legitimate concerns about antisemitism but also as a pretext to extract sweeping concessions from institutions, from expansive data disclosures to changes in internal policies and governance. In this environment, opponents say enforcement risks shifting from protection to coercion—eroding trust on campus and raising concerns that federal oversight is being wielded less as a safeguard and more as a political tool.
For now, the matter rests with U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert, as the intervening groups seek to limit the EEOC’s access to personal information. The outcome could have implications well beyond Penn, shaping how federal agencies pursue discrimination investigations across higher education—and how far they can go in the name of protecting vulnerable communities without putting them at further risk.
