University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax has fired the opening salvo in her bid to resurrect a high-profile discrimination lawsuit, filing a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals just weeks after a federal judge torched her claims as legally baseless. The move thrusts the tenured firebrand’s battle against campus sanctions back into the national spotlight, reigniting debates over free speech, reverse discrimination, and academic accountability.
The Amy Wax discrimination appeal electrifies legal circles as the Third Circuit appeal drama unfolds in the Penn Law discrimination lawsuit. With Wax’s push to revive racial discrimination claims against UPenn, this saga spotlights escalating tensions in Ivy League halls, where provocative speech collides with DEI mandates. For U.S. educators and free speech advocates, it’s a litmus test on whether “woke” policies shield some voices while silencing others.
Wax’s Controversial Tenure: From Provocateur to Plaintiff
Amy Wax, a tenured professor since 1987, has been a lightning rod at Penn Carey Law for her unfiltered conservative commentary. Her travails peaked in 2017 with a podcast alongside economist Glenn Loury, where she asserted, “On average, blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites,” and claimed she’d never seen a Black student in her class’s top quartile. Additional barbs—labeling U.S. immigration a “pause in stupidity” favoring Asians over “less Asian” Europeans, and emailing minority students about behavioral changes for equality—drew widespread condemnation.
A 2023 faculty senate probe deemed her conduct “flagrant unprofessionalism,” culminating in September 2024 sanctions: a one-year half-pay suspension for 2025-26, permanent loss of her named chair and summer pay, public reprimand, office relocation outside the law school, and bans from advising or committees. Wax decried these as retaliation for her views, not misconduct, prompting her January 2025 lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Lawsuit’s Explosive Allegations
Wax’s 53-page complaint invoked Titles VI and VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the First Amendment, and her tenure contract. She accused UPenn of racial double standards: Punishing white speakers harsher than minorities for analogous remarks, creating a hostile environment for whites and Jews under Title VI (jeopardizing federal funds). Title VII targeted employment bias tied to her race; First Amendment claims hit viewpoint discrimination based on “perceived harm”; contract breaches cited due process failures, including denied health accommodations.
Examples? Penn allegedly overlooked racist tweets from minority faculty while swift on hers; the probe by Dean Eduardo Peñalver was “biased,” per Wax. She sought injunctions against sanctions and damages.
Judge Savage’s Scathing Dismissal: No Protected Class, No Case
On August 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge Timothy Savage dismissed federal claims with prejudice in a 52-page opinion, ruling Wax failed to link discrimination to protected classes. “Wax does not allege facts showing she was discriminated against because she was speaking on behalf of any protected class. She did not associate with any person or persons who were in a protected class. She did not support any protected class,” Savage wrote, emphasizing her speech denigrated minorities, not advocated for them.
State contract claims were dismissed without prejudice for state court refiling. A Penn spokesperson declined comment, but the ruling aligned with the university’s defense: Sanctions addressed conduct, not speech. Above the Law dubbed it a “shimmering ball of disaster,” arguing minor penalties fit unprofessionalism.
The Third Circuit Gambit: Appeal Notice and Strategy Tease
Wax’s September 26, 2025, notice of appeal—filed pro se but likely backed by counsel—targets Savage’s dismissal, with briefing to follow. Her team eyes reversal on pleading standards, arguing the judge misread her “reverse racism” claims as unprotected. Success could reinstate the suit, forcing Penn to defend policies and awarding damages; failure pushes state claims.
Legal watchers predict a slog: Third Circuit precedents favor universities on speech, but Wax’s camp leverages 2025’s conservative judicial tilt.
Wax’s Legal Arsenal: From Skadden to Solo?
While the notice lists Wax solo, insiders whisper involvement from white-collar defenders like Skadden’s Patrick Fitzgerald—her ex-colleague from SDNY days. No formal entry yet, but expect heavyweights.
Firestorm Reactions: Ideological Fault Lines Exposed
The appeal has polarized discourse. Conservative bastions like Legal Insurrection cheered: “UPenn Law Prof. Amy Wax… will appeal her discrimination case to the Third Circuit. Good,” garnering 56 likes on X. FIRE, her longtime backer, warned of eroding academic freedom at Penn.
Critics pounced: University of Chicago’s Brian Leiter dismissed it outright; Above the Law mocked the “minor sanctions.” On X, #AmyWaxAppeal trends with barbs—”Reverse racism myth busted again”—versus defenses: “Penn’s DEI witch hunt exposed.” Reuters notes the suit’s rarity in tenure challenges.
A Rutgers poll hints at broader campus chill: 62% of faculty self-censor on race post-2024 DEI mandates.
Echoes Across America: Academia’s Reckoning
For U.S. readers, the Amy Wax discrimination appeal transcends Penn—it’s a proxy for culture wars roiling higher ed. With Ivy scandals fueling enrollment drops (down 5% at elites in 2025), this tests free speech limits amid DEI scrutiny, swaying donations in red-leaning donor states.
Economically, tenure fragility worries mid-career profs nationwide; politically, it arms conservative pushes for federal bias probes. Technologically, it spotlights AI speech monitors, raising privacy alarms. Lifestyle? Parents vet ideological climates for $80K tuitions, while pros dodge workplace parallels.
Road to Revival: High Stakes, Uncertain Odds
Wax’s Third Circuit appeal could hit en banc review by mid-2026, with trial looming if revived. Experts like Duane Morris’ Maria Gonzalez peg odds at 30% but hail it as a “win for retail academics.” Penn braces for discovery’s glare on faculty biases.
As the Penn Law discrimination lawsuit grinds on, the Amy Wax discrimination appeal and Third Circuit appeal drama signal academia’s deepening divides. In this racial discrimination claims crucible, Wax’s revival quest could redefine protections—or reinforce the status quo.
By Sam Michael
September 28, 2025
Follow us and subscribe for push notifications to stay ahead of breaking U.S. legal and education news—your edge in the academic arena!
Amy Wax discrimination appeal, Third Circuit appeal Amy Wax, Penn Law discrimination lawsuit, racial discrimination claims UPenn, Amy Wax Penn sanctions, academic free speech case, Title VI VII university discrimination, Wax v University of Pennsylvania, reverse discrimination lawsuit, 2025 higher ed controversies