Campus backlash mounts over judge order seeking names of Jewish students, faculty

Student leaders, professors, and campus organizations criticized a federal judge’s order requiring Penn to turn over personal information about members of its Jewish community.

On March 31, U.S. District Judge Gerald Pappert ordered the University to comply with a subpoena from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — the latest development in the agency’s effort to investigate campus antisemitism. Professors and students spoke out against the decision in conversations with The Daily Pennsylvanian.

College senior Jake Zubkoff — who formerly served as a member of Penn Hillel’s executive board — described the ruling as “a major violation of privacy as a student.”

While he described experiencing a “massive uptick in antisemitic incidents and hate crimes against Jews” since Oct. 7, 2023, Zubkoff asserted a “tendency especially among leaders currently on the right to try to score political points by claiming the mantle of defending Jews.”

According to Zubkoff, the EEOC is “jeopardizing those Jewish community members with their rhetoric and with their policies.”

A request for comment was left with a University spokesperson. 

Religious Studies professor Steven Weitzman, the director of the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, also told the DP that “there have been cases in the past where information compiled by the government has been used to support discrimination against Jews.”

Weitzman serves as a leader of the University Task Force on Antisemitism — first announced in November 2023 — added that the anonymity of the group’s listening sessions could be compromised by the Pappert’s ruling.

“I don’t think it’s his place to tell Jews what they can and cannot be anxious about,” Weitzman said. “To release the names and contact information for the people who participated in those sessions is a serious ethical breach, and I need to do everything within my power to prevent that breach from happening.”

Weitzman previously told the DP he was contacted by the EEOC on his personal cellphone as part of a larger attempt by the agency to get in touch with faculty in the Jewish Studies Program.

According to another professor at Penn, “a remarkably ideologically, religiously, and politically diverse array of organizations and individuals have united to support Penn in its efforts to resist the subpoena.”

The professor wrote that Pappert “seems willing to accept the government’s assertions that Penn is a hotbed of anti-Jewish hate.” Despite concerns about antisemitism on campus, she wrote that Pappert is “utterly unwilling to credit the fears of actual Jewish employees” about the University turning over personal information “in such an atmosphere.”

“The judge discounts Jewish employees’ assertions that enforcing the subpoena will burden religious practice, as well as association with Jewish organizations, Jewish studies, and willingness to participate in listening sessions and surveys about antisemitism,” the professor continued.

She concluded that the “undisputed fact that Jewish students, faculty, and staff are frightened and will be chilled from exercising our rights to free association and religious practice is enough to support a First Amendment claim.”

Penn Hillel also criticized the decision in a Tuesday social media statement, stating that allowing the government to make lists of Jews at Penn carries “a dark historical resonance.” According to the post, Hillel is dedicated to the “safety, dignity, and privacy of the Jewish community” at Penn. 

“We maintain that the University’s previous proposal — inviting individuals to contact the EEOC voluntarily — offered a effective and respectful alternative that prioritized privacy,” the post read.

On Wednesday, Penn Hillel Executive Director Rabbi Gabe Greenberg announced an online information session on April 6 to “help provide clarity” and answer questions about the case.

“We understand that the idea of government-assembled lists based on religious identity is deeply concerning to many,” Greenberg wrote. “We want to ensure you have the most accurate information and a space to learn about these developments together.”

A spokesperson for Penn’s chapter of the Jewish Law Students Association also wrote to the DP that complying with the subpoena could “discourage students from associating with our chapter in the future.”

“We are also disappointed in the Court’s mischaracterization of our group’s concerns as only belonging to one person, rather than being representative of the broader JLSA community, which overwhelmingly supported our intervention in the lawsuit,” the spokesperson wrote.

The JLSA — one of the intervening organizations in the lawsuit — has fought alongside Penn against the EEOC.

In November 2025, the EEOC filed a lawsuit alleging that Penn failed to comply a subpoena sent amid an ongoing investigation into alleged workplace antisemitism. In January, Penn responded to the agency’s claims of noncompliance, stating that it had followed the agency’s demands but remained unwilling to submit personal information without the consent of the affected parties.

Later that month, the EEOC claimed Penn “impeded” the agency’s investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism and that its subpoena was “no different” from other requests for information in previous investigations.

In March, Pappert heard oral arguments in the case. At the time, he emphasized that his role was solely to determine whether the EEOC had a valid charge, not to debate the merits of the agency’s charges. 

A Penn spokesperson previously confirmed to the DP that the University intends to appeal the decision. 

---