Federal agency texts Columbia University and Barnard College employees a survey asking if they are Jewish

CNN - Apr 24th, 2025

Staff at Columbia University and Barnard College were surprised to receive texts linking to a survey from the EEOC, asking if they were Jewish or Israeli. This was part of a federal probe into workplace discrimination at these institutions. The survey, part of an investigation into alleged harassment of Jewish employees, has raised privacy concerns, as staff were not forewarned about the data sharing with the EEOC. Barnard, in particular, was criticized for not alerting staff, only notifying them post-survey distribution. This has caused distress among employees, like Debbie Becher and Nara Milanich, who expressed concerns about their personal data being shared without consent.

The investigation is seen as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to address antisemitism on college campuses, amidst tensions from recent pro-Palestinian protests. The EEOC's actions highlight ongoing scrutiny of higher education institutions regarding their treatment of Jewish communities. With Columbia under investigation by the Department of Education for similar issues, this situation underscores the administration's focus on combating antisemitism. The incident has sparked debate over privacy rights and the balance between compliance with federal investigations and protecting personal information of staff members.

Trump Administration Antisemitism Privacy Concerns Civil Rights Act Eeoc Columbia University Workplace Discrimination Title Vii Barnard College Debbie Becher Nara Milanich

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a well-rounded and accurate account of the EEOC's investigation into alleged harassment at Columbia University and Barnard College. It presents the facts clearly and supports them with credible sources, ensuring factual accuracy. The story effectively highlights the concerns of staff members regarding privacy and the legal implications of sharing personal information, while also addressing the broader political context.

While the article maintains balance by including multiple perspectives, it could benefit from additional viewpoints, such as legal experts or EEOC representatives, to provide a fuller understanding of the investigation. The article is timely and relevant, addressing current issues of public interest, such as privacy rights and government intervention in higher education.

Overall, the article is well-written and engaging, with the potential to influence public opinion and provoke meaningful discussions. It could enhance its impact by exploring the broader implications of the investigation and providing more interactive elements to encourage reader engagement. The story successfully addresses controversial topics, but further exploration of differing viewpoints would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand.

Accuracy

The news story accurately reports on the distribution of a survey by the EEOC to Columbia University and Barnard College staff, as confirmed by multiple sources. The story correctly details the survey's content, which includes questions about Jewish identity and potential harassment. It accurately states that Columbia University received a subpoena related to the investigation, and Barnard College's lack of prior notification to its staff is also confirmed by the sources.

However, the story could benefit from additional verification regarding the legal basis for sharing personal contact information and the broader political implications mentioned. While the story presents these elements, further corroboration from legal experts or additional official statements would enhance its precision.

Overall, the article is factually accurate in its main claims and is supported by credible sources, though it could include more detailed verification on certain points.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from both Columbia University and Barnard College staff members, as well as official statements from the institutions. It presents the concerns of the staff regarding privacy and the legality of sharing personal information, alongside the institutions' explanations for complying with the EEOC's request.

However, the article could improve balance by including more perspectives from legal experts or representatives from the EEOC to provide a fuller understanding of the legal and procedural context of the investigation. Additionally, while it mentions the political context, it could delve deeper into counterarguments or differing viewpoints regarding the administration's actions against antisemitism on college campuses.

The balance is generally maintained, but a wider range of perspectives would enhance the story's comprehensiveness.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear, concise language to convey the key points of the story. The narrative flows logically, beginning with the initial shock of the survey's distribution and moving through the responses of the institutions and staff members.

The use of direct quotes and specific examples aids in understanding the situation and the concerns of those involved. The article effectively balances detailed reporting with accessible language, making it easy for readers to follow the story.

While the article is mostly clear, it could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the legal and procedural aspects of the EEOC's investigation to enhance reader comprehension.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including official statements from Columbia University and Barnard College, and interviews with staff members. CNN, a reputable news outlet, is the primary source, lending credibility to the information presented. The inclusion of direct quotes from affected individuals adds authenticity to the report.

While the sources used are reliable, the article could benefit from additional authoritative voices, such as legal experts or EEOC representatives, to provide deeper insights into the investigation and its legal ramifications. This would enhance the story's depth and authority.

Overall, the source quality is strong, with credible and relevant sources supporting the article's claims.

Transparency

The article is transparent in disclosing the sources of its information, including direct quotes from staff members and official statements from the universities. It clearly outlines the basis for its claims and provides context for the EEOC's investigation.

However, the article could improve transparency by explaining the methodology behind the survey's distribution and the legal framework allowing the EEOC to access personal contact information. Additionally, more explicit disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases from the involved parties would enhance transparency.

The article is generally transparent, but further explanation of the investigation's procedural aspects and potential biases would strengthen this dimension.