The EEOC first requested the information in July as part of its investigation into claims of anti-Semitism at the university. Penn refused to listen.
Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
A Pennsylvania district court judge ordered Tuesday that the University of Pennsylvania must comply with a request by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reveal the names and contact information of employees who are members of Jewish groups or organizations, a request that critics of the Trump administration likened to Nazi Germany’s efforts to identify and document Jewish people.
In his memorandum, Judge Gerald Pappert, an Obama appointee, raised one caveat: Penn is not required to identify labor unions with a specific organization. In other words, while the names and information of employees at Jewish organizations must be redacted, Penn officials are not required to specify which organization they belong to—a rule the EEOC previously agreed to, the judge noted.
The EEOC first requested the information in July as part of its investigation into claims of anti-Semitism at the university, saying it would help the commission identify potential victims. Penn refused to comply; in the official filing of Jan. 20, the university called the request “an extraordinary and unconstitutional demand.” The American Association of University Professors joined the suit on Penn’s side.
“Requiring Penn to create and compile a list of Jewish people — especially those involved in political affairs unpopular with the government — creates a disturbing history of the twentieth century,” the AAUP wrote in a statement. “Apart from Penn himself, this case has serious implications for the religious freedom of AAUP members across the country, and their right to speak and study without threat of ideological conformity. The government has no right to demand the private, personal information of religious minorities.”
Pappert criticized the defense’s comparison to Nazi Germany in Tuesday’s memo.
“Penn and the other groups and organizations that the Court allowed to intervene raised the temperature of the controversy by clearly and unequivocally pointing out the EEOC’s efforts to protect Jewish employees from anti-Semitic references to the Holocaust and Nazi compilation of the ‘Jewish list.’ Allegations like this are unfortunate and unwarranted,” Pappert wrote. “They also review the limited role of the Court and the legal issues before it.”
The judge rejected all of Penn’s arguments. Home addresses, phone numbers and participation in campus groups do not rise to the level of “personal information” protected by the Constitution, he wrote. Also, just because the subpoena refers to religion does not mean that the subpoena is classified by religion.
Throughout the case, EEOC representatives maintained that its request fell within its rights to investigate the university and, during oral argument, said the commission “doesn’t care who is a member of the organization.”
Spokespeople for the EEOC and Penn did not return calls Within Higher EdRequest for comments before publication.
This is a developing story and will be updated as new information becomes available.
