Wax
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.