From the Interim President

The University of Pennsylvania’s Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators, in the Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken Against Members of the Faculty, provides that at the conclusion of a proceeding resulting in the imposition of a major sanction against a faculty member, the University President shall publish in Almanac a statement describing the case and its disposition. 

The case involving charges brought against Penn Carey Law Professor Amy Wax, initiated during the tenure of President Emerita Gutmann, has now concluded, following a review of Professor Wax’s appeal by the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (SCAFR). Under the provisions of the Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators, the SCAFR was charged with determining whether there was a significant defect in procedure for this case. The SCAFR has since determined there has not been any significant defect in procedure, thereby concluding this matter. 

For the benefit of the University community’s understanding of the matter, I have elected to publish in full the decision by then-President M. Elizabeth Magill to accept the recommendations of a faculty hearing board, which found Professor Wax responsible for major infractions of University behavioral standards and recommended the imposition of major sanctions, along with a timeline of the case appended to President Magill’s decision. As Interim President, I am confirming and implementing this final decision. 

—J. Larry Jameson, Interim President

From the Provost

As noted below, in the matter involving Professor Amy Wax, the Faculty Hearing Board recommended a public reprimand. That reprimand is included here for publication. The suspension recommended by the Faculty Hearing Board will be imposed in the 2025-2026 academic year. 

Published: September 24, 2024

Dear Professor Wax:

I write in connection with the decision of the Faculty Senate Hearing Board rendered in accordance with the University of Pennsylvania Procedure Governing Sanctions Taken Against Members of the Faculty (section II.E.16 of the Handbook for Faculty and Academic Administrators) on the charges brought against you by former Dean Theodore Ruger. As you know, following a three-day hearing held in May 2023, the faculty Hearing Board concluded that you engaged in “flagrant unprofessional conduct” that breached your responsibilities as a teacher to offer an equal opportunity to all students to learn from you. That conduct included a history of making sweeping and derogatory generalizations about groups by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and immigration status; breaching the requirement that student grades be kept private by publicly speaking about the grades of law students by race and continuing to do so even after cautioned by the dean that it was a violation of University policy; and, on numerous occasions in and out of the classroom and in public, making discriminatory and disparaging statements targeting specific racial, ethnic, and other groups with which many students identify.

The Board recommended sanctions including a one-year suspension from the University at half pay; the loss of your named chair; the loss of summer pay in perpetuity; the requirement that you note in public appearances that you speak for yourself alone and not as a University or Penn Carey Law School faculty member; and a public reprimand.   

Under our policy, former President M. Elizabeth Magill reviewed the Board’s recommendations. The Handbook provides that the President “may depart from the Hearing Board’s recommendations only in exceptional circumstances, and only to reduce the severity of recommended sanctions or to dismiss the charges for failure of proof” (Section II.E.16.4.I.2). As she found no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the Board’s recommendations, nor any ground to return the case to the Board for further review, President Magill accepted the Board’s recommendations. You subsequently appealed the matter to the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, which found no procedural defect warranting remand to the Hearing Board. 

Interim President J. Larry Jameson confirmed and is implementing the final decision. The matter is now concluded, so in accordance with the recommendations of the Hearing Board, I am issuing to you this public letter of reprimand.

Academic freedom is and should be very broad. Teachers, however, must conduct themselves in a manner that conveys a willingness to assess all students fairly. They may not engage in unprofessional conduct that creates an unequal educational environment. The Board has determined that your conduct failed to meet these expectations, leaving many students understandably concerned that you cannot and would not be an impartial judge of their academic performance.

It is imperative that you conduct yourself in a professional manner in your interactions with faculty colleagues, students, and staff. This includes refraining from flagrantly unprofessional and targeted disparagement of any individual or group in the University community. These directives will remain in effect for so long as you are a member of the University’s standing faculty. 

Sincerely,
—John L. Jackson, Jr., Provost 

Report of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility

May 29, 2024

Dear Interim President Jameson:

The Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (“SCAFR”) hereby submits its Report in the Matter of Professor Amy L. Wax.

After careful considerations, the Committee has found no significant defect in procedure that would require a remand to the Hearing Board. Our report appears below:

On September 29, 2023, Respondent, Professor Amy L. Wax, filed a Written Statement of Appeal (“the Appeal”) from the Decision of the President of the University of Pennsylvania (“the President”) issued on August 11, 2023, to accept the Report of the Hearing Board convened in this matter and issued on June 21, 2023 (“the Hearing Board Report”). The Appeal was filed with the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (“SCAFR”), which is charged, pursuant to Section II.E.16.4.J. of the Faculty Handbook, with the review of all documents forwarded to it by the President and the Respondent’s Written Statement of Appeal. In addition to the Appeal, SCAFR also received, reviewed, and considered a letter dated October 9, 2023, from Respondent’s counsel, which raised an additional issue which Respondent believed should be considered as part of her Appeal.

SCAFR’s responsibility under the rules proscribed by the Faculty Handbook is limited: its duty is to determine whether there has been “a significant defect in procedure,” in which case SCAFR is required to remand the matter to the Hearing Board for further proceedings pursuant to Section II.E.16.I.4.

SCAFR’s review occurs after, but is separate from, the President’s review of any appeal. In this instance, the President considered the matter pursuant to the standard set forth in Section II.E.16.I.4. of the Handbook and found no “exceptional circumstances” warranting a departure from the Hearing Board’s recommendation. Faced with the President’s decision to accept the Hearing Board’s Report, the Respondent’s Appeal to SCAFR followed.

To assist SCAFR, the Committee retained outside independent counsel. The work of the Committee and the advice of counsel were not shared with the University’s Office of General Counsel.

In undertaking its work in this matter, the Committee adhered to the limited role set forth for it in the Faculty Handbook. Under the Committee’s interpretation of the language in the Handbook, SCAFR’s role was not to conduct a de novo review of the matter. Ambiguities, if any, in the record below were to be resolved in favor of the Hearing Board’s Report. Deference was accorded to the Hearing Board’s decisions about how it weighed the evidence before it and the value and credibility of all witness testimony. Phrased differently, SCAFR did not reach its own conclusion on the substance of the matter (that is, whether the Charging Party met its burden of proof of establishing “just cause” for imposition of a major sanction). Under the Handbook, that substantive determination rests with the Hearing Board as does the determination of which sanctions were warranted in this case. The Committee did, however, make its own, independent judgment about whether the required procedures were followed and whether any potential defects in procedure rose to the level of “significant.” In doing so, SCAFR reviewed all relevant Faculty Handbook language, the record below, all the filed submissions, and the October 9, 2023, letter from Respondent’s counsel. The Committee considered each of the Respondent’s allegations of procedural defect, and the Committee also searched the record for other potential procedural defects.

After careful consideration and thoughtful discussion, the Committee found no significant procedural defect. The Committee hereby shares its decision with the President.

Respectfully submitted,
—The Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility