By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has demanded the University of Pennsylvania provide personal information about Jewish faculty, staff, and students, sparking strong criticism. Faculty groups, including the American Association of University Professors, have intervened in the lawsuit, denouncing the request as an egregious overreach with potentially dangerous historical implications. The university, which established a taskforce to combat antisemitism, initially refused to comply with the subpoena, citing concerns about privacy and safety for the Jewish community. The EEOC maintains its commitment to investigating workplace antisemitism and seeks to identify potential victims, but the faculty groups argue that the request to create a centralized registry of Jewish individuals infringes on fundamental rights and evokes disturbing historical parallels.
Read the original article here
UPenn faculty condemn Trump administration’s demand for ‘lists of Jews’ because the request, in their eyes, is a deeply unsettling echo of historical events that led to the persecution of Jewish people. The core concern revolves around the potential misuse of such data, especially given the historical context and the current political climate. The very idea of the government requesting and possibly compiling lists of Jewish individuals evokes a chilling resonance with past atrocities. It’s a fundamental worry that the information could be used to target and marginalize a specific group, and that the promise of protection rings hollow when weighed against the potential for harm. The immediate reaction from many, both within and outside the university, is one of alarm and a sense that this request represents a significant threat.
The rationale provided by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for needing this information, that it is to “protect them from antisemitism,” is viewed with suspicion and skepticism. The argument is that demanding lists of Jewish people could, in fact, achieve the opposite of protection. The absence of specific details about how this data would be used to safeguard Jewish individuals fuels further distrust. This omission is perceived as a critical flaw, making the request seem more like a pretext for something else rather than a genuine effort to combat prejudice. In this context, the demand feels less like a security measure and more like a potential prelude to discrimination and harm.
The fact that a similar request was made at Barnard, and perhaps other institutions, further amplifies the sense of unease. The situation is seen as a sign of something larger – a disturbing trend or pattern. The focus is not just on the isolated demand from the EEOC, but on the broader implications, and the potential for a more extensive campaign. The concern extends to the fundamental rights of individuals and the safety of the Jewish community within the United States. Many are comparing the situation to tactics used by the Nazis and other regimes that targeted Jewish people with tragic consequences.
Many see the demand for these lists as part of a larger pattern of actions that align with an ideology that is hostile to the Jewish community. This context is critical because it casts doubt on the motivations behind the request. Given the Trump administration’s past actions and rhetoric, there’s a strong belief that the request is not an isolated incident but part of a broader agenda. This skepticism colors the interpretation of the request, viewing it not as an isolated effort to protect Jewish people but as a prelude to something potentially far more sinister. There is concern that the request represents an attempt to intimidate, silence, or target a specific population, or to lay the groundwork for a broader campaign of discrimination.
Furthermore, there is deep concern over the creation and maintenance of lists of individuals based on their identity. The historical and contemporary misuse of such data sets, including targeting based on race, religion, and political affiliation, is well documented. The potential for the manipulation, theft, or exploitation of this data is seen as an unacceptable risk. The argument is that such information should not exist in the hands of the government, and the effort to collect this information is an infringement on privacy and fundamental rights.
The fear of these lists is intensified by the belief that anonymity and privacy are essential protections against discrimination and abuse. The perception is that creating databases with personal information creates opportunities for abuse of power. The more complete the profile, the greater the potential for misuse. This concern is amplified by the idea that there’s an active effort to collect personal information for nefarious purposes.
In essence, the UPenn faculty’s condemnation is rooted in a fundamental distrust of the Trump administration’s motives. The request for lists of Jewish people is seen as an attempt to undermine the rights and safety of the Jewish community, not protect it. The echoes of history, combined with the current political climate, create a very real sense of danger, and the response is a determined rejection of any action that could potentially lead to the targeting and persecution of Jewish people. The demand is not just an administrative request but a symptom of a much deeper problem that calls for a strong and unambiguous response.