To the editor: Has historical past ever seemed kindly on the governments or nation states that instituted legal guidelines, obligations, rules or insurance policies particular to figuring out these of its personal residents as “Jewish” (“Judge says Penn must turn over information about Jewish employees in U.S. discrimination probe,” March 31)?
Moreover, by what measure would such a requirement immediately discern, with all consideration to the absurdity deserved, how Jewish? Non secular or secular? Orthodox or not? Assimilated, however not an excessive amount of? After all, that’s only for starters.
From a purely sensible perspective, what’s the College of Pennsylvania to do in adhering to the courtroom’s order? Are we alleged to assume the college, as a matter of normal apply, maintains employment information which have a “sure” designation listed subsequent to every employee? Penn has already stated it doesn’t “keep worker lists by faith.”
Lacking from this text is any consideration as to why the tons of or 1000’s of the college who establish as Jewish ought to have their names supplied to this or another authorities.
Hopefully, even a few of these readers who help this administration may suppose that sounds a minimum of a “bisl” harmful.
Ted Rosenblatt, Hancock Park
..
To the editor: I’m appalled by U.S. District Decide Gerald Pappert’s ruling that the College of Pennsylvania should give out the names and private contact data of Jewish staff to the Justice Division.
My dismay is just not primarily based on the parallel to Nazi/fascist investigations of Jews within the Nineteen Thirties and ‘40s, nor the privateness rights of the college. It’s primarily based on fundamental privateness rights of any worker to stop having his or her title and handle given out to anybody when the one motive for the request relies on the faith of the worker.
Andrew E. Rubin, Los Angeles
