Amy
Wax
In
September,
Penn
Law’s
Amy
Wax
received
a
tepid
slap
on
the
wrist
from
the
University
following
years
of
racist
antics.
Wax
repeatedly
disgraced
the
University,
from
writing
racist
opinion
columns
and
telling
the
school
paper
that
when
it
comes
to
“white”
culture,
“I
don’t
shrink
from
the
word,
‘superior’”
to
publicly
insulting
Black
Penn
students
—
without
evidence
—
claiming
that,
as
an
ethnicity,
they
“rarely”
graduate
in
the
top
half
of
the
law
school
class
to
bringing
recognized
white
nationalist
figures
to
campus.
Through
it
all,
Wax
draped
herself
in
“academic
freedom”
and
managed
to
hold
the
school
at
bay
for
a
lot
longer
than
you’d
have
thought
considering
her
“academic”
work
amounted
to
citing
Wikipedia
to
spout
off
in
newspapers
and
webcasts
rather
than
submit
any
scholarship
to
scrutiny.
Finally
though,
the
school
had
enough
and
sanctioned
her
to
one
year
at
half
pay
and
no
summer
pay,
a
public
reprimand,
the
loss
of
her
named
chair,
and
a
requirement
that
she
must
always
clarify
that
she’s
not
speaking
for
or
as
a
member
of
Penn
Law.
But
MAGA
means
never
saying
you’re
sorry
and
that
the
only
racism
that
counts
is
“racism”
against
white
people
so
Wax
is
planning
to
sue
the
school
for
“racial
discrimination”
unless
it
drops
the
sanctions
and
lets
her
get
back
to
using
her
position
to
explain
that
the
country
needs
“fewer
Asians.”
In
a letter to
Interim
Penn
President
Larry
Jameson
and
the
University
Board
of
Trustees,
Wax’s
lawyers
argued
that
the
University’s
speech
policies
are
“inconsistent”
and
violate
Titles
VI
and
VII
of
the Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964.
These
titles
prohibit
discrimination
and
employment
discrimination
based
on
race,
color,
religion,
sex,
and
national
origin.
The
lawyers
also
cited
a
federal
code
prohibiting
racial
discrimination.
Furthermore,
they
claimed
that
the
policies
breach
Pennsylvania
contract
law,
noting
that
Wax’s
contract
with
the
University
includes
provisions
safeguarding
free
speech.
It
remains
confusing
how
Wax
finances
her
attorneys,
since
she’s
said
in
the
past
that
donations
to
her
legal
defense
are
tax
deductible
which
would
seem
contrary
to
federal
tax
laws
that
prohibit
entities
set
up
to
benefit
a
private
individual
from
claiming
tax
deductible
status.
But
maybe
she
paid
taxes
on
the
money
she
raised
on
the
back
end.
In
any
event,
her
legal
counsel
cites
a
number
of
potentially
inflammatory
statements
from
other
faculty
members
who
were
not
punished
the
same
way,
implying
a
selective
and
discriminatory
process.
For
example,
the
letter
cited
a
faculty
member
for
drawing
a
cartoon
that
Wax’s
counsel
say
depicts
blood
libel
with
three
men
drinking
blood
from
glasses
marked
“Gaza”
while
they
call
a
peace
dove
an
anti-Semite.
The
letter
notes:
You,
President
Jameson,
issued
a
statement
condemning
this
cartoon,
but
lecturer
Booth
has
to
date
received
no
official
sanctions
as
levied
against
Professor
Wax.
In
fact,
the
Jameson
Statement
(available
at
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/announcements/statement-political-cartoons-j-larry-jameson-interim-president-university)
implied
that
Penn’s
“bedrock
commitment
to
open
expression
and
academic
freedom”
required
that
Penn
impose
no
sanction
against
Booth
because
Booth
and
other
speakers
with
his
views
have
the
“right
and
ability
…
to
express
their
views,
however
loathsome
we
find
them.”
If
anything,
this
proves
how
consistent
the
school’s
disciplinary
process
is.
Wax
wrote
her
article
about
white
culture
being
superior
in
2017.
She
made
up
her
unfounded
attack
on
Black
students
in
2018.
She
was
publicly
citing
Wikipedia
in
2019.
Amy
Wax
had
at
least
an
eight-year
runway
before
the
school
took
even
modest
disciplinary
action
(she
was
taken
off
the
1L
teaching
rotation
in
2018…
which
seems
more
like
a
reward).
The
school
didn’t
publicly
discipline
a
professor
over
a
single
incident?
When
it’s
a
political
cartoon
and
not,
for
example,
a
false
claim
about
student
academic
records?
No
kidding!
The
crux
of
Wax’s
reasoning
is
that
the
school’s
stated
commitment
to
expression
of
“loathsome”
ideas
should
apply
her
behavior
like
apples
apply
to
oranges.
If
Wax
limited
herself
to
penning
articles
endorsing
mass
deportation
she’d
get
properly
roasted
by
the
critics
and
probably
denounced
in
the
same
way
the
cartoonist
was,
but
she’d
fall
within
the
broad
confines
of
academic
freedom.
Telling
the
world
that
you
don’t
think
a
specific
racial
category
of
students
are
smart
enough
for
law
school
is
not,
on
the
other
hand,
remotely
passable
as
a
scholarly
commentary
on
geopolitics.
But
worse
than
being
merely
inconsistent,
the
University’s
speech
policies—including
its
actions
against
Professor
Wax—transparently
discriminate
on
the
basis
of
race,
including
most
notably
the
race
of
the
subject
of
the
speech
at
issue.
As
such,
they
violate
federal
law’s
various
prohibitions
against
race-based
discrimination,
including
Titles
VI
and
VII
and
42
U.S.C.
§
1981.
It’s
discrimination
based
on
“the
race
of
the
subject
of
the
speech
at
issue.”
Denigrating
minority
students
should
be
protected
by
anti-discrimination
laws
because
the
school
didn’t
punish
OTHER
instances
of
discrimination
is
a
true
Galaxy
Brain
take.
If
anything,
this
suggests
the
school
should
punish
more
people,
not
that
Wax
shouldn’t
get
punished.
In
addition,
the
University’s
content-based
discrimination
against
the
speech
that
is
at
issue
here
violates
the
University’s
contractual
promise
to
Professor
Wax
(and
all
other
tenured
professors)
to
abide
by
First
Amendment
principles.
Yeah,
the
First
Amendment
doesn’t
really
get
people
out
of
hostile
work
environment
allegations.
“Look,
I
was
just
kidding
about
that
slur”
might
be
protected
from
prosecution,
but
you’re
still
going
to
get
written
up.
And
the
procedures
that
the
University
employed
to
determine
that
discipline
was
warranted
were
also
gravely
flawed
and
violated
the
contractual
tenure
protections
of
basic
due
process
and
fundamental
fairness
that
Professor
Wax
enjoys.
The
procedures
further
contravened
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act,
since
they
failed
to
accommodate
Professor
Wax’s
then-ongoing
cancer
treatments
adequately
(or
even
minimally).
From
the
outside,
it’s
hard
to
assess
the
extent
of
accommodations
provided
to
Wax.
But
the
process
was
quite
slow.
It’s
hard
to
believe
there’s
a
serious
claim
for
racial
discrimination
in
here.
On
the
other
hand,
by
tying
her
case
to
high-profile
statements
made
about
the
Gaza
war
and
the
UnitedHealthcare
CEO
killing,
Wax
sets
the
stage
for
a
cable
news
tour
decrying
the
campus
free
speech
“crisis”
that
outlets
love
to
hype.
They
had
a
field
day
getting
university
presidents
—
including
Penn’s
—
tossed.
This
seems
like
the
sort
of
manifesto
they
could
build
a
segment
around.
Of
course,
maybe
this
is
the
prelude
to
a
real
claim
that
we’ll
see
as
soon
as
the
school
tells
her
to
pound
sand.
But
generally
never
underestimate
a
publicity
hound’s
nose
for
publicity.
Penn
Carey
Law
professor
Amy
Wax
threatens
to
sue
University
on
basis
of
racial
discrimination
[Daily
Pennsylvanian]
Earlier:
Amy
Wax
Sanctioned
But
Keeps
Her
Job,
Tenure,
Confidence
That
School
Can’t
Do
Anything
More
The
Amy
Wax
Case
Has
Nothing
To
Do
With
Academic
Freedom
Professor
Declares
Black
Students
‘Rarely’
Graduate
In
The
Top
Half
Of
Law
School
Class
Law
Professors
Say
White
’50s
Culture
Is
Superior,
Other
Racist
Stuff
Amy
Wax
Moves
To
Dismiss
Disciplinary
Action,
Still
Raising
Legal
Defense
Funds
That
She
Claims
Are
Tax-Deductible
Amy
Wax
Says
Her
Legal
Defense
Fund
Is
A
501(c)(3)
Charity
And
That
Seems…
Odd
Law
School
Professor
Amy
Wax
Cites
Wikipedia
And
We
Need
To
Stop
Pretending
Tenure
Was
Made
For
This
If
You’re
Just
Finding
Out
Amy
Wax
Invited
A
White
Supremacist
To
Her
Class,
There’s
So,
So
Much
More!
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.