Federal Judge Orders University of Pennsylvania to Hand Over Jewish Employee Data

Key Takeaways

• US District Judge Gerald Pappert ruled the University of Pennsylvania must comply with the EEOC subpoena.
• The subpoena seeks names and contact info of Jewish staff to investigate antisemitism allegations.
• University officials plan to appeal, citing privacy and First Amendment concerns regarding the data request.

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the University of Pennsylvania to comply with a subpoena from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) seeking a list of Jewish community members. This ruling comes in an effort by the federal government to combat antisemitism on the Ivy League campus, despite the university's significant legal resistance to the demand.

The university had fiercely fought the EEOC subpoena, which had alarmed several members of Penn's Jewish community and triggered a monthslong federal court battle. Multiple individuals told CNN that the government's quest for a list of names, phone numbers, and mailing addresses felt like an invasion of privacy, evoking haunting historical comparisons to the collection of demographic data during eras of persecution.

In a 32-page opinion issued three weeks after oral arguments in a Philadelphia courtroom, US District Judge Gerald Pappert dismissed these constitutional concerns. Judge Pappert explicitly stated that comparisons between the EEOC's work and the Holocaust or Nazi Germany were "unfortunate and inappropriate." He argued that while the request was "ineptly worded," it served an understandable purpose: to obtain information in a narrowly tailored way on individuals in Penn's Jewish community who could have experienced or witnessed antisemitism in the workplace, rather than seeking data on all university employees.

The University of Pennsylvania plans to appeal the ruling, a spokesperson said in a statement. The institution maintains that requiring them to create lists of Jewish faculty and staff, and to provide personal contact information, raises serious privacy and First Amendment concerns. Furthermore, the University stated it does not maintain employee lists by religion, meaning they would be tasked with identifying Jewish community members by combing through staff and organizations if the subpoena is enforced.

Jewish historian and professor Beth Wenger, who understands the importance of combating antisemitism on college campuses, told CNN she was "deeply disappointed by the ruling." Wenger expressed fundamental concerns about the government being allowed to gather the personal information of Jews or any other group, questioning the scope of such a data collection effort.

The EEOC issued its EEOC subpoena last summer, aiming to force the university to hand over lists of the school's Jewish community members as part of an investigation into antisemitism on campus. This investigation began after intense campus protests regarding Israel's response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas and amid a wave of scrutiny over the university's handling of allegations of antisemitism. Although Penn promised to address these concerns and formed a Task Force on Antisemitism, the EEOC was evidently not satisfied with the initial response.

The initial subpoena specifically requested a "list of all clubs, groups, organizations and recreation groups...related to the Jewish religion, faith, ancestry/National Origin," along with the names, phone numbers, and mailing addresses of members. Additionally, the document asked for a list of employees in the Jewish Studies Program and the names of staff and faculty who participated in "listening sessions" on antisemitism, which the university had previously stated would remain confidential.

Amanda Shanor, a Wharton professor and attorney representing members of the Penn community, noted that the government is essentially looking for a list of Jewish employees. During oral arguments on March 10, an attorney for the EEOC, Debra Lawrence, dismissed concerns about creating a "central registry" of Jews as "political rhetoric." Lawrence argued that gathering the folks subjected to a hostile work environment is highly relevant to the case. However, Shanor argued that the subpoena is unconstitutional, particularly given that Penn does not track which employees may be Jewish, noting that religious beliefs are not voluntarily shared with employers like race or sex.

"Whether the government has the power to demand lists like this should be important to every American, no matter their faith or political ideology," Shanor said. She emphasized that constitutional freedoms to join groups and teach without worry of having names on a government list are foundational to democracy. The university asserts it will challenge the ruling, confident that higher courts will uphold bedrock constitutional principles.

The lone constraint the judge made to the subpoena was that Penn did not need to reveal any employee's affiliation with a specific Jewish-related organization, nor provide information about partner organizations not technically run by the university, like Penn Hillel. The EEOC declined to comment on the ruling, referring CNN to the judge's opinion.

The Aftermath of the Judge's Ruling on University Policy

The University of Pennsylvania has indicated it will appeal the decision, arguing that the compelled creation of a religious registry violates fundamental rights. While the judge ruled the data request necessary for investigating antisemitism, the institution insists that compiling such lists infringes upon the First Amendment and Jewish privacy. If the appellate courts uphold the lower court's decision, the university will face the difficult task of identifying Jewish community members without existing records, potentially requiring invasive internal inquiries. This legal precedent could set a significant tone for how federal agencies interact with religious data on higher education campuses in the future, forcing institutions to weigh the demands of federal anti-discrimination laws against the privacy rights of their faculty and staff. The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the government can compel universities to maintain religious registries for investigative purposes, a move that many legal scholars and community leaders view as a dangerous overreach into the internal workings of educational institutions.