Jewish faculty members and scholars are fighting back against the University of Pennsylvania’s anti-academic behavior. Their anger fails to account for Trump administration’s attempted blacklisting of Jewish professors, staff and students by requiring extensive personal information. The request is filled with sensitive information, such as personal emails, phone numbers and home addresses. This has fueled the anger of academic communities. Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund reacted with shock and disbelief over the government’s actions. He called them an executive abuse of power.
Faculty groups, including the American Association of Universities, have criticized the administration’s FY 2024 request for its historical significance and future threat. They claim that such collection of information is eerily reminiscent to strategies utilized under past oppressive governments. Penn State has established a presidential task force to address campus antisemitism. They’re bending over backwards trying to satisfy the government’s drastic demands.
This embarrassing situation is reminiscent of an incident at neighboring Barnard College. In the latter case, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) contacted employees on their own cell phones to gather data on their Jewish or Israeli identities.
The impacts of these changes have raised enough alarms that the academic community has reacted with considerable alarm. Eisen described the situation as “an abuse of government power that drags us back to some of the darkest chapters in our history.” Most importantly, he focused on how these seemingly innocuous requests can result in the weaponization of information gathered in the name of public safety.
“We are entering territory that should shock every single one of us.” – Norm Eisen
We turned to Beth Wenger, a professor of Jewish history at Penn, to get her thoughts on the whole thing. She noted that scholars in Jewish studies are particularly sensitive to the dangers of lists of Jewish people. Her concerns are emblematic of a deeper fear echoed by the majority of professors.
“As Jewish study scholars, we know well the dangers of collecting such information.” – Beth Wenger
Steven Weitzman, a Jewish professor and chair of Penn’s religious studies department, expressed his dismay. He is furthermore a member of the university’s antisemitism task force. He told the Daily Beast that the government’s push for registries of Jewish people makes them feel “unsafe,” and the new national climate is intimidating them.
“It instills a sense of vulnerability among Jews.” – Steven Weitzman
If such requests were to go through, Weitzman warned of the disastrous implications of such actions. He cautioned that the information gathered could be misused or create disproportionate effects. Chief Woodson sounded the alarm too, citing history’s precedent on how this sort of granular data can be easily weaponized against marginalized communities.
“Part of what sets off alarm bells for people like me is a history of people using Jewish lists against Jews.” – Steven Weitzman
The American Association of University Professors, both nationally and through its many local chapters, showed real muscle this week by joining in federal court on Tuesday. They were soon joined by the Penn’s Jewish Law Students Association and the Association of Senior and Emeritus Faculty Groups to voice these concerns. This intervention is a much-needed first step to protect the rights of academic freedom and privacy.
The American Academy of Jewish Research participated in filing a motion to quash the demands. Andrea Lucas, an attorney involved in the case, highlighted ongoing issues with the employer’s unwillingness to identify those affected by this unlawful conduct.
“Unfortunately, the employer continues to refuse to identify members of its workforce who may have been subjected to this unlawful conduct.” – Andrea Lucas
In the University of Pennsylvania’s response, this included forming a task force specifically focused on studying antisemitism on campus. This decision is meant to quell concern expressed by faculty, while dealing with the federal requirements that are often forcing states’ hands.
As discussions continue about the implications of government data collection practices on academic institutions, many are left pondering how these actions reflect broader societal issues concerning privacy and civil liberties. The possible ramifications extend well past the halls of academia. They are right to raise serious concerns about how we protect vulnerable communities and the ethical responsibilities of government agencies.