A second lawsuit has been filed by tenured law professor Dr. Amy Wax against the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) after disciplinary action was taken against her and the matter of academic freedom is again in the spotlight. In this latest complaint, Wax asserts that her rights under Penn’s tenure and faculty-contract provisions were breached when the university imposed sanctions in October 2024.
Background to the academic freedom dispute
The academic freedom conflict at Penn traces back several years. Wax, a social welfare law and policy scholar who has taught at Penn’s law school since 2001, had become inbred in controversy over remarks about race, immigration and culture. In 2017 students and faculty called for her dismissal after she co-authored an opinion piece on Anglo-Protestant cultural norms.
In 2018 she was banned from teaching required first-year courses following a podcast comment in which she said she had “never seen a Black
law student graduate in the top quarter of his or her class, and rarely in the top half.”
In 2022 she published a blog post asserting that the U.S. is “better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration” if most Asians vote Democrat, triggering further institutional sanctions.
The October 2024 Sanctions and Litigation
In October 2024, Penn imposed several disciplinary measures on Wax: her named chair was revoked, her pay was reduced, and she was suspended from teaching.
Wax argues that these sanctions were based on her public statements made in podcasts and op-eds on topics such as affirmative action, immigration policy and culture’s connection to economic advancement and she claims they were made outside the classroom, yet led to university discipline.
Her new complaint contends that Penn breached contractual obligations, including those set out in the Faculty Handbook, by treating her speech as an “action” subject to sanction rather than protected academic discourse.
Why academic freedom is at stake
This dispute raises questions about how
academic freedom is defined and protected within private universities. Wax claims Penn’s disciplinary process ignored due-process rights: she says she was not allowed to cross-examine witnesses in the investigative process and that the hearing co-chair had an undisclosed conflict of interest.
Her legal team argues that when a
private institution disciplines a tenured faculty member for extramural speech, every professor may be at risk. In a statement her counsel suggested that the precedent could threaten free faculty expression at private universities.
The earlier federal case and its dismissal
This new lawsuit comes after a federal case filed in January 2025 by Wax in which she alleged that Penn applied a
discriminatory speech policy disciplining white faculty more severely than minority faculty and that her tenure protections had been violated.
On August 27, 2025, Senior U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage dismissed that case, finding that Wax did not allege facts showing that race was a factor in the decision-making process, and deeming the discrimination claims “implausible.”
Having appealed that ruling, Wax has now turned to a state court action that focuses more explicitly on her contractual, tenure and academic-freedom rights rather than discrimination per se.
What this means for Penn and higher education
Because Penn is one of the
nation’s leading private universities, the outcome may influence how other institutions craft and enforce policies regarding faculty speech, tenure rights and discipline. If Wax’s arguments succeed, private universities may face increased scrutiny over how they apply sanctions for faculty speech, even when that speech is controversial or outside the classroom.
Moreover, the case spotlights the balancing act between protecting students from a hostile educational environment and preserving the broad latitude that professors typically have to engage in controversial commentary.
Possible hurdles and outlook
Wax will face a number of challenges. First, proving that the disciplinary action violated contractual or handbook protections will require detailed factual and procedural evidence. Her new complaint alleges process flaws such as no cross-examination and conflicts of interest but Penn will likely defend its actions as appropriate under its internal governance.
Second, because private universities are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way public universities are, courts typically defer to the institution’s contract and policy language. Wax’s argument hinges on her being a tenured faculty member under an existing contract with specified protections.
Finally, the case may drag on, meaning any definitive resolution could take years during which faculty, administrators and observers will watch closely for precedent.
Conclusion: A pivotal moment for academic freedom
The case filed by Dr. Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania goes to the heart of the question: how far does academic freedom extend when a tenured professor makes controversial remarks outside of the classroom? The new lawsuit places contractual tenure rights, faculty due process and institutional governance into sharp relief. If the court sides with Wax, the precedent may alter how private universities across the country handle faculty discipline especially when speech is involved. Whatever the outcome, this dispute underscores that the boundaries of academic freedom in higher education remain contested and evolving.
Want deeper insight into the legal industry? Explore more expert coverage on
JDJournal and find your next opportunity on
LawCrossing.
The post
UPenn Faces Second Lawsuit From Amy Wax first appeared on
JDJournal Blog.
