The clash between the University of Pennsylvania and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over records related to Jewish employees should disturb anyone concerned about both antisemitism and civil liberties. On its face, this is a dispute over a subpoena—standard bureaucratic fare. But the deeper conflict reveals something unprecedented: a federal demand for the government to identify, collect, and centralize data on Jews at a major American university.
Penn is right to call that “extraordinary and unconstitutional.” It is also historically dangerous.
A Line That American Government Has Avoided for Good Reason
Unlike race and gender, Judaism is a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, and—painfully—an identity that has been targeted for centuries by governments compiling lists. Penn’s response touches this legacy directly, warning of the “frightening and well-documented history of governmental entities” that sought to catalogue Jews. That history is not rhetorical flourish; it is the backbone of why American institutions typically avoid precisely what the EEOC is now insisting they do.
The subpoena demands information on:
- Employees who filed antisemitism complaints
- Employees involved in Jewish groups
- Employees with Jewish ancestry or affiliation
To call such a sweep “disconcerting,” as Penn does, is understated. It is a government request that veers into ideological profiling.
The Tension No One Wants to Confront: How Do You Investigate Antisemitism Without Targeting Jews?
The Trump administration’s defense is straightforward: the EEOC is investigating potential discrimination. That is a legitimate objective—indeed, given the skyrocketing antisemitism on campuses since October 7, a necessary one.
But the method matters.
A federal probe into antisemitism that begins by demanding that a university identify its Jewish employees is akin to fighting medical malpractice by first requesting a list of every patient with a particular genetic trait. It is imprecise, invasive, and indifferent to the constitutional vulnerabilities it creates.
There is a reason civil-rights enforcement typically focuses on documented behavior, institutional actions, and specific allegations—not on the mass identification of a protected class.
Penn’s Other Problem: The University Helped Create This Crisis
Universities like Penn spent years downplaying or ignoring antisemitic hostility on campus. When Jewish students and faculty raised concerns, administrators often responded with procedural delay, equivocation, or a fear of antagonizing powerful activist blocs.
That reluctance helped prompt the very federal scrutiny the school now decries.
But failure to act earlier does not justify an overreach now. A university can be wrong about antisemitism and still right about due process.
A Government With Broad Power Must Use It Narrowly
The Trump administration frames Penn’s resistance as obstruction—proof that elite universities want to shield themselves from accountability. That is an effective political line. But accountability cannot be achieved by resurrecting tools historically used to persecute.
A federal agency cannot investigate antisemitism by compelling an institution to identify Jews. That is a category error with constitutional implications.
The EEOC has many legitimate investigative tools at its disposal:
- Interview complainants
- Request specific case files
- Examine relevant emails, decisions, or policy failures
- Collect voluntary testimony
Penn even offered to notify all employees of the EEOC’s interest and invite them to come forward. The commission rejected this approach and moved immediately to enforcement.
That says something. And what it says is troubling.
The Real Crisis Is the Vacuum of Trust
America’s institutions are failing simultaneously:
- Universities have failed to protect Jewish students.
- Federal agencies are failing to tailor enforcement in ways that protect civil liberties.
- Political leaders are turning antisemitism into a proxy battlefield for their broader ideological war.
Caught in the middle are Jewish faculty, staff, and students—who now face the dual fear of campus hostility and federal overreach.
The Way Forward Requires Precision, Not Posturing
Antisemitism must be investigated. The law must be enforced. Universities must be held accountable.
But a government that demands a list of Jews—even in the name of combatting antisemitism—risks repeating patterns that democratic societies should instinctively resist.
The EEOC should narrow its request. Penn should recommit to real transparency on antisemitism. And both sides should remember the lesson history teaches again and again:
Protecting Jewish safety can never come at the expense of Jewish privacy.
Because once a society becomes comfortable identifying and cataloguing Jews, even for noble reasons, it rarely ends with noble outcomes.