Eighteen months ago, I described the case of law professor Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania. She had made statements that were deemed bigoted. I defended her speech, even though it was vile. That post began:
The New York Times published an article about a tenured professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, Amy Wax, who has frequently made statements that are racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, the whole range of prejudices, not what you expect of someone who supposedly teaches students that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
The question I posed to readers was whether they thought that her statements were protected speech or should be sanctioned. A lively discussion ensued.
The University of Pennsylvania just announced sanctions against Professor Wax but did not fire her or strip her of tenure. The student newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, reported the decision:
Penn has upheld sanctions against University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax following her history of discriminatory remarks and two years of disciplinary proceedings with little precedent.
“These findings are now final, following a determination by the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility that the proper process was followed,” a University spokesperson wrote in a statement to The Daily Pennsylvanian.
The new ruling, first reported by The Philadelphia Inquirer, comes after the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility upheld sanctions that were initially recommended by a Faculty Senate hearing board on June 21, 2023 and strikes down an appeal filed by Wax and her lawyer, David Shapiro, this past February.
The sanctions mark the first time in recent history that a tenured University professor has been sanctioned through Faculty Senate procedures. Neither Wax nor her lawyer responded to requests for comment in time for the publishing of this article.
The DP previously reported that the recommended sanctions against Wax included a one-year suspension at half pay, the removal of her named chair and summer pay, and a requirement for Wax to note in public appearances that she is not speaking on behalf or as a member of Penn Carey Law.
Penn will announce the decision in Tuesday’s edition of the Penn Almanac. The decision will include a letter of reprimand from Provost John Jackson Jr.
“Academic freedom is and should be very broad. Teachers, however, must conduct themselves in a manner that conveys a willingness to assess all students fairly,” Jackson wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by the DP. “They may not engage in unprofessional conduct that creates an unequal educational environment.”
Interim Penn President Larry Jameson added that Wax must refrain from “flagrantly unprofessional and targeted disparagement of any individual or group in the University community … for so long as [she is] a member of the University’s standing faculty.”
In a June 2023 letter to former Penn President Liz Magill, the hearing board noted that they “do not dispute the protection” that Wax holds over her views, but said that the way she presents these views violate widely acknowledged “behavioral professional norms” when presented as “uncontroverted.”
The hearing board “unanimously” found that the facts presented throughout the hearing “constitute serious violations of University norms and policies,” according to the letter. The hearing board also concluded that Wax’s behavior “has created a hostile campus environment and a hostile learning atmosphere.”
When determining sanctions, the hearing board decided that the University should issue a public reprimand, but it did not suggest that Wax should be fired or stripped of tenure. Separate from the sanctions, the hearing board suggested that the University and Penn Carey Law should consider having Wax co-teach her classes with another faculty member, and that Wax teach her classes outside of Penn Carey Law buildings.
The board wrote that it found Wax “in dereliction of her scholarly responsibilities, especially as a teacher” in part due to her “reliance on misleading and partial information,” which results in her drawing “sweeping and unreliable conclusions.”
But the sanctions, which reportedly take effect for the 2025-26 school year, won’t have an impact on her teaching plans this semester — which, according to a course syllabus obtained by the DP, include an invite of American Renaissance magazine editor Jared Taylor to deliver a guest lecture at Dec. 3 meeting of LAW 9560: “Conservative and Political Legal Thought.” The invitation would mark at least the third appearance by Taylor at Wax’s class in four years, after his visit last fall sparked a protest outside Wax’s classroom and a rare schoolwide emailfrom Penn Carey Law Dean Sophia Lee addressing the “bounds of academic freedom.”
Weeks before Taylor comes to campus, Wax is scheduled to speak at a conference in Tennessee alongside multiple people who have reportedly espoused white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and racist views.
Tuesday’s Almanac will also include an Aug. 11, 2023 letter from Magill in which she accepted the sanctions initially recommended by the hearing board.
Jameson provided an introduction for Magill’s letter, summarizing the disciplinary process against Wax and confirming he was implementing Magill’s decision.
Magill wrote in her letter that the board considered arguments such as the “critical point” regarding academic freedom and used a “well-developed” factual record to make its decision.
While she said she was “mindful of the limit of my authority as established by our policy,” Magill accepted the major sanctions suggested from the board’s report.
The letter from Magill prompted Wax to file a Aug. 29, 2023 appeal to SCAFR, in which Wax’s lawyer argued that there were “several procedural defects” which gave the respondent the right to appeal.
Shapiro wrote that that the most significant “defect” was that the hearing board made the decision “about the breadth and extent of a tenured professor’s contractually guaranteed right to academic freedom,” rather than SCAFR.
The appeal also alleged that Magill and the hearing board applied an unfair speech standard. Shapiro wrote that Wax was punished under an “incoherent standard, never before articulated, or applied to any Penn faculty member.”
The standard used to punish Wax has drawn scrutiny from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national civil liberties group which said on Monday that Penn had mustered “zero evidence” that Wax discriminated against her students.
“Faculty nationwide may now pay a heavy price for Penn’s willingness to undercut academic freedom for all to get at this one professor,” FIRE Vice President Alex Morey wrote in a statement. “After today, any university under pressure to censor a controversial faculty member need only follow Penn’s playbook.”
Wax’s history of discriminatory statements has included her claiming that Black students never graduate at the top of the Penn Carey Law class and that “non-Western groups” are resentful towards “Western people.” Wax has also faced criticism for hosting white nationalist Jared Taylor for a guest lecture and allegedly telling a Penn Carey Law student that she was only accepted into the Ivy League “because of affirmative action.”
In June 2022, former Penn Carey Law Dean Ted Ruger filed a complaint to the Faculty Senate recommending a “major sanction” against Wax. At the time, he cited numerous student and faculty accounts of Wax’s conduct that he believed warranted disciplinary action. Ruger asked the Faculty Senate to appoint a hearing board of five professors from across the University to evaluate his complaint, conduct a full review of Wax’s conduct, and impose sanctions in line with the University’s policy for punishing tenured faculty members.
“Academic freedom for a tenured scholar is, and always has been, premised on a faculty member remaining fit to perform the minimal requirements of the job,” Ruger wrote in his report to the Faculty Senate. “However, Wax’s conduct demonstrates a ‘flagrant disregard of the standards, rules, or mission of the University.’”

Being a “racist” is odious, but it’s NOT against the law. Acting on racist thoughts/ideas IS against the law. Did Professor Wax “act” on her racist thoughts? I thought college was meant to be a place of higher learning and critical thinking….so wouldn’t it have been better for those “offended” students to request a transfer out of that class for another Professor? One can’t know “light” without knowing what is “dark”.
LikeLike
It appears that Professor Wax has demonstrated a bias against minority students and has demonstrated that bias to students directly. To claim that her racist views have no effect on her view of a student or her actions in relation to that student is disingenuous to say the least. As a teacher, those views had no place in a classroom. As a professor of law, her documentation of her views should be rigorous. Her reasons for rejecting opposing viewpoints should be equally compelling. Sanctions are totally appropriate and her work should remain under meticulous scrutiny.
LikeLike
I had a Philosophy instructor who was an atheist. He told us this on the 1st day of class. Most students were of Christian or Jewish faith (small local college). Every time he talked about “God” (which he did a lot!?) he had to also add in “spelled DOG backwards”. Some students took offense and transferred out. Those of us who stayed just thought he was a pompous jerk and tuned out to most of what he said. I don’t know what point he was trying to prove by being an ass, but he never “acted” to make us deny our faith….maybe that was the point?
LikeLike
How does someone make you “deny” your faith in a college course? It’s more a matter of unrelenting disrespect. It’s much easier to dismiss his antics when the class is in general agreement that the guy is a jerk. If you are in a minority, the situation can be different, especially if you have been in a minority for your entire life. Didn’t anyone feel brave enough to call him out. Seems to me he was making a show of being able to denigrate people’s beliefs because he was in a position of power.
LikeLike
I dropped out of my local chapter of the American Humanist Association, to which I had given a couple talks, because I came to see it as yet another religion–that of materialist determinism–blinkered, not warranted by facts, and destructive of philosophical speculation. This professor should have been issued a warning that if this behavior persisted, he would be fired for cause. It’s one thing for him, in a philosophy course, to present philosophical arguments related to the existence or nonexistence of God and free will or the problem of evil or whatever. That’s teaching and entirely appropriate in a college-level course, but for him to be talking like this to his is NOT acceptable.
LikeLike
This sort of ideological stuff happens ALL THE TIME, unfortunately, in colleges. Years ago, I took a graduate course in the Harvard Extension Program called Psychology of Women or something like that. We had an essay exam, and at one point I wrote something like, “Freud had a number of ideas about women’s sexuality that have since been proven false. He believed, for example, that women have vaginal orgasms.” The TA who graded my exam wrote in all caps with an exclamation mark in the margin that “YOU REALLY SHOULD KNOW BETTER BY NOW. VAGINAL ORGASMS ARE A SEXIST MYTH!” and docked me an entire letter grade.
I get it. It’s a pain to grade a huge class load of essay exams, and graders sometimes grow inattentive, but this misreading of what I had said seemed to me clearly an example of someone’s ideology clouding their perceptions by priming them to see sexism where it didn’t exist.
Cue a certain commenter’s library-long dissertations on who all men are sexist due to implicit bias.
LikeLike
Did Professor Wax deny a student an education based on the color of her/his skin? Were students told to leave the class? Were students called racial slurs? Professor Wax has some views that some students don’t like and they took it upon themselves to “save the world” by trying to have Professor Wax fired from UPenn. Students at college should be hearing/learning about different viewpoints so that they can grow into critical thinkers. Like I said, being a racist (if she really is?) is NOT illegal and Professor Wax did not act on her supposed racism….which is illegal.
We have a problem in this country and it’s caused by people not listening/ hearing/learning about other points of view. We don’t have to agree with the “other side”, but we have to listen to them about WHY they feel the way they do. College campuses aren’t doing the job of churning out critical thinkers and we have reached a point that our whole society is in danger of collapse.
LikeLike
I agree with speduktr. Exactly right, thank you!
LikeLike
This case shows how complicated and tricky free speech issues are. Professor Wax exercised her right to free speech, but she also is subject to the ruling of her employer, a private institution. She is fortunate she was not dismissed as some others in a similar position have been. People have the right to free speech, but they also have to accept the consequences of that speech.
LikeLike
Tough call for Penn Law. Not sure where I come out on it.
LikeLike
Any chance she confused liberty with license here? That’s a common problem these days.
LikeLike
Well put.
LikeLiked by 1 person
while I am all for freedom of speech, I think we need to learn to be good to each other. Is civility too much to ask of a professor?
LikeLike
Not an easy call; no wonder the processing has taken so much time. I do not agree with LisaM’s first post, as this is not a legal proceeding– but I do agree with her take on her onetime Philosophy prof. Being an ass is not in itself a reason for a warning. To interpret his periodic atheism-based sarcasm as an attack on ‘religious freedom’ or something similar is a stretch, & smacks of claims of ‘micro-aggressions’ & the need for ‘safe spaces.’ FLERP’s first post comes the closest to my own analysis of the situation.
LikeLike
Claims of “micro-aggressions” and the need for “safe spaces” is how we have gotten to this mess.! Students (especially law students) need to hear truth and they need to hear facts (however hurtful some may be) and they need to hear different viewpoints. It’s called learning! Yep, some Professors are A-holes. Some professors just show up to do a job to collect a paycheck. Some professors are there to teach their students and help them learn. We send our kids to college so that they become thinking individuals who are able to work within society.
LikeLike
I wish all the white people triggered by supposed anti-white racism and the Catholic folks who got triggered by Linda’s interesting posts criticizing the Catholic Church would understand that they had to hear different viewpoints, however hurtful they may be. I was shocked that people were so upset with Linda and seemed to be demanding that this blog be a “safe space” for them. They DID seem to succeed in driving her away, which no doubt they are ashamed of since they now seem to recognize that her views deserved to be heard and it was wrong for anyone to complain.
LikeLike
I do not miss the geyser of bigotry, thank you very much.
LikeLike
Reading Linda’s monotonous rants was like listening to the extended version of My Ding a Ling by Chuck Berry ALL DAY LONG! It didn’t/doesn’t matter if she was correct…it got old and EVERY topic turned to the” awful” Catholic Church and Leonard Leo.
LikeLike
I’m old enough to remember when a woman who objected to having photos of naked women in the workplace was accused of the equivalent of “needing safe spaces”.
And I am old enough to remember the sneering and nastiness (the equivalent of needing “safe spaces”) that occurred when women FIRST started asking not to be referred to as “girls” or “gals” or “missies” or “honey” or a dozen other then-acceptable actions.
I remember how much resistance there was to women being referred to as MS Smith instead of Miss or Mrs. “It doesn’t bother my mother/wife/daughter/friends/everyone I know who is a “girl”, so what is wrong with those overly sensitive fem-Nazis who should just shut up”.
One person’s “micro-aggressions” and “safe spaces” is another person’s basic respect and kindness.
When does “Being an Ass” outside the workspace trickle into the workspace?
Can a devoted member of the Ku Klux Klan put aside his beliefs and teach a class with 25 white students and 2 black students? Can a devoted member of the Nazi party put aside his beliefs and teach a class with 25 Christian students and 2 Jewish students?
LikeLike
In fairness that’s basically my position on most things.
Part of my reticence has to do with the fact that there were some factual allegations made against her that she disputed (e.g. the comment to the student about being a double Ivy due to affirmative action), and I don’t know what the fact-finding revealed or what all the arguments were—the news reports don’t get into that detail. That context could tip the scales one way or another. I also know the school has been trying to nail her for years, and that they paid near top-dollar for a very high powered firm to come in and paper every bit of the proceedings to the T.
“Free speech” cases are often difficult because they require us to draw lines that are arbitrary (in the sense of arbitrated, i.e. ultimately resting in one person or one body’s judgment call, beyond appeal to reason or any other authority). In practice, nobody’s actually a free speech absolutist. There are always lines somewhere. Where they’re drawn is ultimately a hard question about what an institution’s values are and what rules help it best function according to those values.
But as a general matter, I try to lean in favor of more free expression and less censorship, and against the opposites.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why students took her classes if they were likely to be offended.
LikeLike
Fair question. I assume she isn’t teaching survey courses, and apparently her seminars have become relatively sparsely attended.
LikeLike
FLERP– Exactly. The linked NYT article says “She has said publicly that on average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites…” and “…And a Black law student who had attended UPenn and Yale said that the professor told her “she had only become a double Ivy ‘because of affirmative action,’ according to the administration.” Those are the items that (if confirmed & especially if typical) would make me say yes to sanctions.
LikeLike
I think it is important to remember that as a private university the first amendment does not apply to Penn. On the other hand, Title 6 and Title 9 do apply and they are in tension with academic freedom in the classroom.
LikeLike
She invited Jared Taylor to speak 3 times. Jared Taylor believes that intelligence is related to race. 1. Asians 2. White. 3. Hispanic 4. Black . I assume that Wax has Taylor speak because she holds the same views. Wax is not a good fit for a multi-racial university. I’d be concerned that her views on racial intelligence would influence her grading. How could a black student feel comfortable and confident in her class knowing that she perceived his race as the least intelligent of all races? Could a university stipulate that they will only employ professors that have a non racial bias in order to ensure that teachers don’t discriminate based on race and that all races are treated fairly?
LikeLike
Grading is blind.
LikeLike
Is that a joke?
LikeLike
No, they use blind grading for exams at that law school.
LikeLike
I see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now that sounds like a joke.
LikeLike
Purely unintentional. Thank you for sharing your insight!
LikeLike
I don’t believe that women are unable to do science as well as men. I don’t believe that women are unable to do medicine as well as men, or law as well as men.
Nonetheless, there was a time when the women that had the fortitude to pursue a career in those fields were not the norm. Just because a Sandra Day O’Connor could persevere did not mean that all the women who did not have that fortitude were less than the many men who could succeed without being required to have that extra special something to succeed despite the attitudes they faced.
I know women who attended excellent universities in the 1970s who were discouraged from pursuing science careers by professors who would swear up and down the town that they treated every single person the same regardless of their gender. The discouragement was subtle.
When I consider what is a reasonable expectation to have of a professor, I imagine my own daughter sitting in a class with a professor (of any gender) who believed women were not as smart as men, that women had been given undeserved special privileges for too long, who invited guest speakers to amplify that women were less than men. I imagine a few women would take that as a challenge and strive to prove themselves, and other women would have a barrier that men didn’t have – this extra pressure and anxiety knowing that every answer they wrote on an exam needed to be good or it would be more proof that women were less than.
It’s ironic – I went to the U Penn Carey Law School website and found the academic support page. Here’s one interesting piece of advice:
“Recognize that your professor may have a different slant on a case than the casebook editor, a study aid, or editorial notes from a case reporter. If you have a pattern of missing your professor’s perspective, ask your professor for some guidance.” Let’s consider who feels welcome to ask their professor for some guidance and who might not.
If you scroll down the bottom of the page, there are “Helpful Hints” links.
Including a link to “Writing Law Examinations” by John H. Langbein, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School
The very last paragraph of Langbein’s essay is about panic.
“Panic. Somehow it happens that a few students get all the way to law school without learning to steel themselves against panic psychology in exam taking. The thought process must be something like this: “Because this exam is important to me, I have to abandon my analytical good sense in a race to slop something on paper. I also have to jettison my usual attention to grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Moreover, I shall adopt stream‐of‐consciousness prose style in order to show the
examiner how desperately urgent I thought it all was.” No matter how important the exam, panic will not help. It only renders you less capable and less persuasive then you otherwise would be.”
Duke University’s Cook Center on Social Equity has some interesting reports
“Stereotype threat, the fear of confirming negative stereotypes about the group to which one belongs, has long been identified as a contributing factor to the black-white academic achievement gap. Past research has indicated that Black students do worse on tests when they are first reminded of their race.”
I do not think it is appropriate for any educator to be EMBRACING racial, gender, or ethnic stereotypes. The idea that an educator who brings that certainty into the classroom would NOT affect the students in it is nonsensical. And often spouted by the same people who whine that their white kid is being “victimized” because he learns that America has not put its racist past aside.
Teachers who believe they could not possibly have an iota of implicit bias are in some ways as dangerous than the ones who are out and out racist. We all have implicit biases – as a juror I watched a video on that very subject and the video NEVER included a caveat “some of you of course, who already know you have no implicit biases, have no need to watch this.”
The point is that every juror who starts off absolutely certain that it is virtually impossible for them to have any implicit biases is problematic. The court doesn’t want people who deny having any biases – they want people who can acknowledge them which is the first step in not letting them affect their judgement. We all have them. All twelve angry men, even Henry Fonda, have them.
And a professor who embraces racist ideas brings that into the classroom whether they believe they are being “fair and balanced” or not.
LikeLike
I just watched an interview with Jared Taylor. YIKES! I cannot believe that any college professor would invite this guy to come speak to their class. He argued that it’s best for the world and people will be happiest if races are free to separate from each other and free to not allow different races in.
LikeLike
“The Memories we choose, that’s who we are.”
From a leadership perspective, this case is “Symbolic” based on the “Frames Theory” by authors Bowman and Deal, 7th. It’s an executive leadership view taught in many universities. This evening, I attended the “Death Penalty Action” vigil at the University of Alabama and watched the execution of an innocent man.
Tomorrow, in Montgomery, Alabama, the Death Penalty Action organization will lead a protest against the execution of 1600 men and women on Death Row since the late 1970s. Montgomery, Alabama, was the capital during the Civil War. SYMBOLICALLY, the Civil War as the “Heart of Dixie” represents one memory and viewpoint. The American Civil Rights Movement in Montgomery, begun in this capital city by MLK and Rosa Parks, gives another perspective and a different memory.
The LYNCHING Memorial in Montgomery by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) with the organization’s museums challenges the “lost cause” view, highlighted in this article as a 1950s viewpoint of law professor Amy Wax, sanctioned by the University of Pennsylvania faculty senate.
Add to this the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC’s) legal cases against HATE Organizations and its center in Montgomery, Alabama, and one can see the symbolism in the streets, monuments, and museums.
Today’s execution, characterized as “unjust” and “nothing more than ritualized, legalized lynchings,” will be protested today on the Alabama Capital steps.
The symbolic wars are increasing as we near the United States’ political decision on the presidency.
The SYMBOLISM goes to the heart of each voter’s choice about who we as a nation will be.
A white Ivy League-trained historian who followed the words of a Black minister in Tuscaloosa made a profound statement. The memories of “Bloody Tuesday” (June 1964) were a missed, hidden, and denied civil rights event that coincided in Mississippi when the KKK in nearby Philadelphia, Mississippi, killed them. Philadelphia, Mississippi, is where Ronald Reagan began a presidential campaign for his election in 1980, and many wonder about the symbolism of choosing that place.
“The memories we choose are who we are.”
Roughly half of our population is choosing a memory of the USA as spoken about from the 1950’s as told in this Blog about Amy Wax and nearly half are choosing a memory that describes the “bending of the arc of justice” that others decry as WOKE. WOKE to be destroyed by banning books and accusing Black Haitian emigrants of eating people’s pets.
Which memory do you choose?
LikeLike
When medical schools started in America about 5% of admissions were women. I’m glad today that those barriers no longer exist and women now have the confidence and access required for success. And it’s amazing how having access leads to having confidence…
LikeLike
On the other hand, and for myself, Trump, Vance, and MAGA (any anyone having to do with the 2025 document) have shaken me out of my wrong idea that misogyny in this country is in decline.
The other thing is my long-time belief in the wisdom of the Supreme Court. GONE. Roberts killed it when he remarked in an interview some years back that (paraphrasing) he thought the southern states (NC) had learned their lesson and didn’t need control by the Court anymore where racial and voting issues were concerned. (I cannot give the reference–but I remember it clearly.) I experienced a bout with cognitive conflict; and thought then that Roberts was even more naive than I, or more probably “out of touch”–he couldn’t have been more out of touch if he were dead.
In either case, Roberts has proven NOT to be fit for his job either. I mean, think about it. The Supreme Court of the United States ignoring the rule of law and by definition if not by name, securing a kingship position for anyone, but for a person such as Trump . . .
Being gobsmacked has reached a new level. The whole thing is utterly insane. CBK
LikeLike