<div><img src="https://static01.nyt.com/images/2026/07/23/multimedia/23nat-penn-glvt/23nat-penn-glvt-facebookJumbo.jpg" class="ff-og-image-inserted"></img></div>
<p>The administration has abandoned its effort to compel the University of Pennsylvania to disclose names of Jewish students and community members on campus, according to a court filing on Thursday.</p>
<p>The retreat does not resolve the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ongoing inquiry into antisemitism at Penn, but it signals the likely end of this particular subpoena tactic in Penn’s case.</p>
<p>The court filing provided no explanation for the decision.</p>
<p>For more than a year, the EEOC had sought records on antisemitism complaints and a list of groups connected to Jewish religion, ancestry, or national origin, including membership rosters and information about individuals involved in Penn’s Jewish Studies Program.</p>
<p>Penn had responded to some requests and objected to others, and the commission subsequently sued in November. The university and its supporters argued that the demands were unconstitutional and endangered people.</p>
<p>In January, the university argued that the EEOC was pursuing information about individuals in the Jewish community in a way that disregarded historical efforts by governmental entities to identify or assemble data on persons of Jewish ancestry.</p>
<p>The EEOC contended that the data were necessary to investigate campus antisemitism, asserting that the university’s responses had been exaggerated.</p>
<p>During a March hearing, a lawyer for the EEOC explained that the request was not for a list of Jews but for a spreadsheet identifying contact information for potential victims and witnesses.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert indicated that the university should largely comply with the subpoena but stayed his decision to allow Penn to appeal, and he expressed concern about how the EEOC pursued its inquiry, particularly regarding data tied to groups connected to Judaism.</p>
<p>Judge Pappert noted that while the request could have been narrowly tailored to identify individuals who could have experienced or witnessed antisemitism, Penn’s constitutional arguments were ultimately not persuasive, and Penn pledged to appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, with the ruling later put on hold due to the broader constitutional questions involved.</p>
<br><br><br><br>