Penn students and faculty expressed relief and optimism in the wake of the University’s resolution agreement with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over lists of Jewish employees.
The resolution — which included Penn and the EEOC but not the intervening groups — stated that the federal agency would not enforce the subpoena in exchange for the University dropping its appeal of the district court ruling. In conversations with The Daily Pennsylvanian, Penn community members reflected on the last development in the yearlong legal battle and its future implications on the EEOC’s actions.
Vice president of the Penn chapter of the American Association of University Professors and bioengineering professor Lorena Grundy characterized the ruling as “a win.”
“The Trump administration wanted to get a list of Jews at Penn, and they are not going to be getting a list of Jews at Penn,” Grundy said. “I think we should be really happy — not only that we got that win, but also the organized coalition of effort that got us there.”
According to Jacob Naimark, outgoing co-president of the Jewish Law Students Association at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, it “felt like the law was so strongly on our side” that “at some point” the group “had this confidence that, hopefully, this outcome was an inevitability.”
Still, after the district court ruling in the EEOC’s favor, Naimark said it felt like the legal proceedings were “going to be an uphill battle.”
Religious studies professor Steven Weitzman called the resolution “a great victory for the University” — but noted that the EEOC “has not withdrawn the subpoena; it’s suspended it.”
“Until the investigation is complete, it could reactivate it,” Weitzman said. “The immediate threat has been removed, but we’re still concerned about the long-term implications.”
Weitzman was one of several members of Penn’s Jewish Studies Program contacted by the EEOC through a personal cell phone number.
He said that although the district court ruling “doesn’t have legal force on other courts,” the EEOC could still “use it to pressure other universities in the way that it tried to pressure Penn.”
On Aug. 4, the intervenors — which include the Penn Association of Senior and Emeritus Faculty, AAUP-Penn, JLSA, and other groups affiliated with the University — filed a motion to vacate the district court opinion.
If granted, the motion would essentially erase federal Judge Gerald Pappert’s ruling from the record — meaning it would have no effect on legal proceedings if a similar subpoena was filed in the future.
Mitch Marcus, the former president of the PASEF, said he was “delighted” the motion had been filed, as the University’s resolution agreement did not stop similar lawsuits from occurring in the future.
“What it doesn’t do is preclude the federal government from coming to Penn or anywhere else and asking for home phone numbers and addresses of people with particular political views, people of any sexual preference you choose, people of any race you choose,” he said. “The original agreement is wonderful, and extending it much more broadly really is an important thing to do.”
Grundy added that she was “really heartened” by a shift in Penn “listening to the collective opinions of the community and being willing to stand up for what’s important.”
“We’re seeing it now that they were willing to fight this fight and not just give in to what the government wanted,” she said. “I really think that the way in which we have banded together and stood up for what we believe in — that made a difference in shaping the University’s actions.”
Naimark said he was “proud” that JLSA intervened in the lawsuit, alongside other Penn organizations.
“It would have been a lot easier for JLSA and the other campus groups that got involved to just continue with our busy lives as students and hope that someone else was taking up this cause,” he said. “Instead, we decided to put our hearts into it, and I think our efforts made a difference because we were able to tell the story from the student perspective.”
Amid the Trump administration’s tenuous relationship with the higher education institutions, Grundy said that conflicts with the federal government are “like playing a game.”
“They are continually trying to get a stronger foothold in higher education and coerce higher education institutions into adhering to their ideology,” Grundy said. “We really need to stand together — not just as different pieces of the Penn community — but also across institutions, across higher ed.”
Grundy added that Penn “can’t comply in advance” with the Trump administration’s next move.
“Whatever this next threat or ask is, we can fight it and we can win,” she said.
Staff reporter Lavanya Mani covers legal affairs and can be reached at mani@thedp.com. At Penn, she studies English. Follow her on X @lavanyamani_.
