Which other universities complied with federal requests for lists of Jewish students or staff, and what did they provide?
Executive summary
Several news reports show a mixed institutional response to federal probes demanding lists of Jewish students, faculty and staff: Barnard College acknowledged complying with an EEOC contact-information request and sent staff a survey/text message that functionally created a roster [1], Columbia affiliates received similar EEOC messages [1], and reporting alleges that at least the University of California, Berkeley shared personal cell numbers with federal investigators [2] [3]; by contrast, the University of Pennsylvania refused to hand over names and contact details and is fighting the subpoena in court [4] [5] [6].
1. Barnard answered federal outreach and shared contact details, including texts and a survey
Reporting in The Guardian documents that Barnard staff and some Columbia affiliates received a text message and Microsoft survey tied to an EEOC inquiry, and Barnard’s administration said it “complied with this lawful request,” while faculty warned that the outreach “in effect creates a list of Jewish faculty, staff and students” [1]. The Guardian quotes Barnard officials saying the EEOC was legally entitled to employee contact information so investigators could offer participation, and faculty expressing alarm about being included in a de facto roster [1].
2. Columbia-affiliated faculty received the same EEOC messages; scope of what was handed over is unclear
The Guardian also reports that members of Columbia’s Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other Columbia faculty received the EEOC text message or survey tied to this federal effort, indicating the agency used direct outreach to campus populations at multiple institutions [1]. Those accounts show Columbia faculty were contacted, but the reporting does not provide an itemized inventory of every datum Columbia released to investigators [1].
3. Reporting alleges UC Berkeley turned over cellphone numbers, but documentation is limited
Two outlets (Religion News Service and Progressive Charlestown) say that a “few” schools — naming Barnard and the University of California, Berkeley — “acquiesced and shared personal cellphone numbers of Jewish faculty” [2] [3]. Those items repeat the same claim that Berkeley provided cell numbers; however, the available snippets do not cite primary documents or official university statements confirming the precise fields sent to federal investigators, so the degree of corroboration in the public record is limited to these reports [2] [3].
4. University of Pennsylvania refused and is litigating; it also provided hundreds of pages of other records
Multiple reports show Penn resisted the EEOC subpoena seeking names and personal contact information for Jewish students, faculty and staff, arguing the request was overbroad and threatened privacy and First Amendment association rights [4] [7]. Reuters and ACLU materials confirm Penn turned over hundreds of pages of documents and offered to help investigators contact potential witnesses without producing a centralized roster, and that Jewish faculty and student groups have moved to intervene in the case to block compelled disclosure [5] [6].
5. Many other campuses were contacted or investigated, but public records do not list a comprehensive compliance roster
The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights notified roughly 60 universities they were under Title VI scrutiny after October 2023, and a Justice Department task force conducted campus visits, showing a broad federal inquiry into antisemitism on campuses [8] [9]. But available reporting does not provide a definitive, document-by-document accounting naming every university that complied with requests or the exact data fields each provided; news coverage highlights individual cases — Barnard, Columbia-affiliated contacts, reports about UC Berkeley, and Penn’s refusal — without a comprehensive, publicly released ledger of compliance across all investigated institutions [1] [2] [4] [8].
6. Competing narratives and the limits of public evidence
Advocates and university officials frame compliance as either lawful cooperation with investigators (Barnard’s statement in The Guardian) or as a dangerous precedent for state-compiled lists of a religious group (academic and civil-liberties groups quoted about Penn), and some outlets allege additional schools provided contact numbers while primary-source confirmation for every claim is not available in the cited reporting [1] [4] [2]. Given those competing framings and the patchy documentary trail in the public reporting, the precise roster of institutions that “complied” and the exact data each turned over remain incompletely documented in the sources examined [2] [3] [1] [8].