Penn Faces Court on Antisemitism Probe Records Request

The University of Pennsylvania is caught in a legal tug‑of‑war over a federal request for detailed lists about its Jewish employees. A judge will soon decide whether the school must comply with a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

Background

• EEOC Allegations
  The EEOC claims that antisemitic incidents—hateful graffiti, a swastika on campus buildings, and violent acts against the Jewish student center—have created a hostile work environment for faculty and staff.

• Probe Timeline
  The investigation began in December 2023, when the EEOC accused Penn of a pattern of antisemitic behavior. The agency argues that Jewish employees may fear speaking out, so it needs to know who has witnessed or suffered harassment.

• Requested Information
  The EEOC wants data on employees’ religious background, membership in Jewish groups, involvement with Penn’s Jewish studies programs, and personal contact details.

University’s Response

• Document Production
  Penn lawyers say the university has already shared roughly 900 pages of documents over two years.

• Constitutional Concerns
  They argue the new request is “extraordinary and unconstitutional,” as it would expose private data such as home addresses and phone numbers.

• Staff Notification Offer
  The university offered to inform staff about the investigation and how to contact the agency, but the EEOC rejected that approach.

ACLU Perspective

An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney explained that the groups represented in the case support investigating antisemitism but oppose forcing Penn to compile lists of Jewish employees. “We’re not against the investigation; we’re against the court ordering us to create those lists and hand over confidential information,” he said.

Legal Proceedings

• Judge Gerald Pappert
  The judge heard arguments for four hours and has not yet set a decision date.

• Implications
  The outcome will determine whether Penn must provide the requested records, potentially impacting employee privacy and setting a precedent for similar investigations.

The case remains pending, with the legal community watching closely to see how privacy rights will be balanced against anti‑discrimination enforcement.