Years of controversial remarks by University of Pennsylvania Carey Law professor Amy Wax — including two years of unprecedented disciplinary proceedings — came to a head last week with reports that Wax was facing sanctions. Now, documents related to the disciplinary proceedings are providing new insight into the sanctions recommended against her and her appeal to Penn.
The confidential documents, which were first released publicly by the Washington Free Beacon, reveal that a hearing board decided to evaluate punishment for Wax on the basis of “flagrant unprofessional conduct by a faculty member,” seeking to differentiate the case from one revolving around University free speech protections. The documents further reveal that Wax’s appeal is grounded in the argument that “there were several procedural defects” when it came to how the hearing board operated.
At the time of publication, all contacted members of the hearing board declined to comment. Both Wax and her lawyer declined to comment on the documents referenced.
The board's June 2023 recommendation came after three days of disciplinary hearings in May 2023, which were held at the request of former Penn Carey Law Dean Ted Ruger. Ruger, who left the deanship in June 2023, began an investigation into Wax in January 2022 after years of allegedly hateful and racist rhetoric.
In case of 'flagrant unprofessional conduct,' hearing board recommends sanctions against Wax
In the June 21 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." The hearing board also concluded that Wax’s behavior “has created a hostile campus environment and a hostile learning atmosphere.”
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.
The hearing board decided that the University should issue a public reprimand, but did not suggest Wax should be fired or stripped of tenure. While separate from the sanctions, the hearing board suggested that the University and Penn Carey Law should consider having Wax co-teach her classes, 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 result in “sweeping and unreliable conclusions.”
The hearing board also found Wax in violation of University privacy policies due to public comments made about students’ “grade distributions by race,” even after she was given warnings to stop.
“Professor Wax’s history of disrespectful and dismissive treatment of various groups is long, persistent, and well-documented,” the letter added.
The hearing board found that members of various groups — including Black, Asian, and Hispanic students — have been “not only harmed but also wronged by [Wax’s] treatment.”
Wax and her attorney appeal, alleging 'procedural defects'
In their appeal to the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, Wax’s lawyer David Shapiro argued that there were “several procedural defects” which gives the respondent the right to appeal.
Shapiro wrote that that the most significant defect was that the hearing board that made the decision “about the breadth and extent of a tenured professor’s contractually guaranteed right to academic freedom," rather than SCAFR.
Another "unfair" defect, Shapiro said, was that the hearing board established a rule — subsequently endorsed by Magill — which prohibited tenured professors from displaying "inequitably targeted disrespect."
The appeal also alleges 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.”
Finally, Shapiro argued that there was no “clear and convincing evidence of major infractions” that were presented to the hearing board, which led to Wax facing sanctions based on "less than clear and convincing evidence."
Now that Wax has appealed the hearing board’s decision, it is up to SCAFR to decide whether there has been a “a significant defect in procedure” according to the Faculty Handbook. If SCAFR does find a deviance from procedure, “it shall remand the matter to the Hearing Board for further proceedings.”
In response to a request for comment, SCAFR members previously told the DP that the committee's proceedings are “strictly confidential.”
Community and outside organizations weigh-in
Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of history and education, and also a member of SCAFR, told the DP that in his view “public statements have to be protected.”
Zimmerman — who made it clear that he is unable to discuss the ongoing appeal process — said that for the people now who are “calling for Amy Wax’s head,” this will “come around to bite them in the head.”
He also noted that in the case of Amy Wax, he makes a distinction between the public statements she has made and her private ones “she is alleged to have made to students.”
"There should be some sort of sanction" if Wax actually made certain comments to students, Zimmerman added.
Zach Greenberg, a senior program officer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression told the DP that FIRE “believe[s] that Penn is violating Amy Wax’s academic freedom rights by trying to punish her for her scholarship, and her teaching, and expression.”
“We feel that any punishment of Wax that's based on her academic freedom that her expression or teaching or research isn't appropriate,” Greenberg added. “So whether that punishment is a form of docking her pay or stripping her titles or terminating her, this is all punishment for her exercising her free speech rights.”
A timeline of Penn’s disciplinary proceedings against Wax
Wax's statements have included 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." Among other allegations, 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, Ruger filed a complaint to the Faculty Senate recommending a major sanction against Wax. He asked the Faculty Senate to appoint a hearing board of five professors from across the University to evaluate his complaint.
“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 a June 2022 report to the Faculty Senate. “However, Wax’s conduct demonstrates a ‘flagrant disregard of the standards, rules, or mission of the University.'”
It remains unclear as to how long the review by SCAFR will take.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate