Amy Wax continues to drape herself in high-minded concepts like the “First Amendment” and “academic freedom” as she fights the sanctions placed on the law professor by the University of Pennsylvania. But a federal judge just slapped down her bid for a preliminary injunction, noting what many of us have said over and over since this saga began. “We reiterate that this is not a First Amendment case,” Judge Timothy Savage wrote. “It is a breach of contract case. Wax’s efforts to characterize it otherwise are of no avail.”
It’s the latest in a long, drawn out affair. The school afforded Wax years worth of a leash to continue embarrassing the institution with racist op-eds and unfounded insults against minority students before, finally, after a lengthy and cautious investigation, sanctioning her to one year at half 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. That’s it. She keeps her job and tenure.
But that wasn’t enough, so Wax took the school to court.
Wax has always clung to a flimsy academic freedom argument. While higher education thrives because it honors a scholar’s freedom to pursue unorthodox hypotheses in the quest for truth, the doctrine loses a lot of juice when a professor trades peer reviewed papers for “Zooming with Tucker Carlson.” She’s basically hit the “Easy” button on her career, opting for rants with friendly audiences rather than face scrutiny from colleagues, and then demanded the protections reserved for scholars out there doing the hard work.
As part of this crusade, she claims the university has trampled her core First Amendment freedoms. But the court notes that Wax can’t bolt free speech onto the contract dispute with her employer:
Wax argues we should presume irreparable harm because the Third Circuit has recently “presum[ed] that First Amendment harms are irreparable.” Id. (citing Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam)). This is not a First Amendment case. It is a breach of contract case.
For the record, Wax teaches labor and employment. Maybe she really should stick to writing op-eds instead.
While Wax gave the school a lot of reasons to sanction her, it was the impugning of student ability and inviting white nationalists to campus that gave the school its strongest arguments. There’s no academic freedom excuse for discriminatory remarks about students or introducing a potential safety issue. That’s core employment fodder.
Not that Wax had much of an argument for irreparable harm anyway.
Wax claims the sanctions damage her reputation. As evidence of irreparable harm, she points to the cancellation of a scheduled radio appearance and an attempted cancellation of a speech at Yale. However, she has not shown any connection between those incidents and the sanctions. She also has not shown that the cancellation and attempted cancellation were not simply a result of her more widely publicized views.
Ha. In the words of The Dude, “This is not a First Amendment thing, man.”
The judge also noted that whatever reputational harm she could conceivably tie to the sanctions has already occurred, making a preliminary injunction useless and that she’s still free to take whatever speaking engagements as long as she affirmatively dispels any confusion that she’s speaking for Penn Law.
And she wants the teaching suspension lifted, but the judge noted that the harm isn’t teaching, it’s the half pay — a damage that doesn’t get cured with equitable relief.
(Check out the opinion on the next page…)
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.
The post Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions appeared first on Above the Law.
Amy Wax continues to drape herself in high-minded concepts like the “First Amendment” and “academic freedom” as she fights the sanctions placed on the law professor by the University of Pennsylvania. But a federal judge just slapped down her bid for a preliminary injunction, noting what many of us have said over and over since this saga began. “We reiterate that this is not a First Amendment case,” Judge Timothy Savage wrote. “It is a breach of contract case. Wax’s efforts to characterize it otherwise are of no avail.”
It’s the latest in a long, drawn out affair. The school afforded Wax years worth of a leash to continue embarrassing the institution with racist op-eds and unfounded insults against minority students before, finally, after a lengthy and cautious investigation, sanctioning her to one year at half 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. That’s it. She keeps her job and tenure.
But that wasn’t enough, so Wax took the school to court.
Wax has always clung to a flimsy academic freedom argument. While higher education thrives because it honors a scholar’s freedom to pursue unorthodox hypotheses in the quest for truth, the doctrine loses a lot of juice when a professor trades peer reviewed papers for “Zooming with Tucker Carlson.” She’s basically hit the “Easy” button on her career, opting for rants with friendly audiences rather than face scrutiny from colleagues, and then demanded the protections reserved for scholars out there doing the hard work.
As part of this crusade, she claims the university has trampled her core First Amendment freedoms. But the court notes that Wax can’t bolt free speech onto the contract dispute with her employer:
Wax argues we should presume irreparable harm because the Third Circuit has recently “presum[ed] that First Amendment harms are irreparable.” Id. (citing Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. 14, 19 (2020) (per curiam)). This is not a First Amendment case. It is a breach of contract case.
For the record, Wax teaches labor and employment. Maybe she really should stick to writing op-eds instead.
While Wax gave the school a lot of reasons to sanction her, it was the impugning of student ability and inviting white nationalists to campus that gave the school its strongest arguments. There’s no academic freedom excuse for discriminatory remarks about students or introducing a potential safety issue. That’s core employment fodder.
Not that Wax had much of an argument for irreparable harm anyway.
Wax claims the sanctions damage her reputation. As evidence of irreparable harm, she points to the cancellation of a scheduled radio appearance and an attempted cancellation of a speech at Yale. However, she has not shown any connection between those incidents and the sanctions. She also has not shown that the cancellation and attempted cancellation were not simply a result of her more widely publicized views.
Ha. In the words of The Dude, “This is not a First Amendment thing, man.”
The judge also noted that whatever reputational harm she could conceivably tie to the sanctions has already occurred, making a preliminary injunction useless and that she’s still free to take whatever speaking engagements as long as she affirmatively dispels any confusion that she’s speaking for Penn Law.
And she wants the teaching suspension lifted, but the judge noted that the harm isn’t teaching, it’s the half pay — a damage that doesn’t get cured with equitable relief.
(Check out the opinion on the next page…)
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.
The post Amy Wax Loses Bid To Enjoin Sanctions appeared first on Above the Law.
