Penn Law’s Amy Wax makes her case to college professors, hoping to gain their support

Amy Wax, the controversial University of Pennsylvania law professor, addressed more than 150 college professors from around the country, aiming to gain their support as Penn decides whether she should be sanctioned for racist remarks.

She denied telling a Black student her success at Ivy League schools was due to affirmative action. She also denied being homophobic or bigoted at a panel, saying she didn’t necessarily agree with all the arguments she made and they weren’t directed at an openly gay colleague who was in attendance. And she denied saying “finally, an American,” during an event, after several foreign students had introduced themselves.

Still, Wax contended, if she had said these things, they wouldn’t amount to harassment and she shouldn’t be punished. She awaits a Penn Faculty Senate hearing that could result in her suspension or firing. Penn would not say if a date for the hearing is set.

“The goal and effect of these charges is to demolish, to totally gut the protections for extramural free speech and free faculty expression and to drive dissenters like me out of the academy,” she said Wednesday during a Q&A hosted by the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that advocates for free speech and has taken interest in her case.

The event was an opportunity for Wax to address allegations made against her and seek support from academic peers.

FIRE director of faculty outreach Komi Frey framed the event as a way for Wax to present her case “and try to win the faculty support needed to convince Penn to drop its disciplinary proceedings.” Attendees were encouraged to ask questions and push back against Wax’s arguments.

It’s not clear if a groundswell of faculty support for Wax would sway Penn to drop the process — the law school declined to comment — or just how effective the Q&A was at winning people over.

Of the people who submitted questions and comments, most expressed support for Wax and concern over what disciplinary action could mean for other professors and their free speech outside of campus.

Wax speculated she was being targeted because she is blunt, forthright, and addresses race.

“The demand for equal outcomes for all groups —that the representation of every group and every position mirror the underlying population — that demand is relentless,” she said. “I think it is a demand that doesn’t comport with the facts and I say so. So I think that when I talk about the differences among groups, that’s when that really raises people’s hackles.”

She noted former Northwestern University law school dean Daniel Rodriguez, whom Penn asked to investigate allegations against Wax in 2021, found no evidence she graded minority students differently. He also couldn’t find evidence Wax “denied them access to professional opportunities over which she had some modicum of control, or singled them out for special ridicule or disparagement.”

Throughout the years, Wax’s published work and opinions have drawn scrutiny and backlash. Yet Penn walked a fine line, condemning some remarks while citing academic freedom when declining to fire her.

After Wax made comments about Black law students’ performance at the school in 2017, Penn removed her from teaching mandatory courses. She again made headlines in 2019 for comments she made in a conference about immigration. In 2021, she invited white nationalist Jared Taylor to her class and to lunch with students.

» READ MORE: Penn Law professor Amy Wax under fire for remarks about race and immigration

But it was the summer of 2022 that proved to be a tipping point. Wax went on a podcast and said the country would be better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration. Law school dean Ted Ruger called for a hearing to sanction Wax over the “several years and multiple instances” she’d shown “callous and flagrant disregard” for the university community.

“Her statements are antithetical to the University’s mission to foster a diverse and inclusive community and have led students and faculty to reasonably believe they will be subjected to discriminatory animus if they come into contact with her,” he wrote in a 12-page letter that included a list of discriminatory conduct on campus and “derogatory” public commentary.

Last fall, Wax asked for a delay in disciplinary hearings, citing her cancer treatment.

Wax said those in academia should have a high tolerance for the “rough and tumble” and conflict that different opinions might bring.

“I would like to personally display that high tolerance myself because I advocate it for other people, for students, for my fellow faculty,” she said. “I think the threshold for claiming harassment should be very, very high as a general matter.”