Amy Wax, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, renowned for invoking the "First Amendment" and "academic freedom" in her defense, has recently faced a setback in her legal battle against the university. A federal judge has dismissed her plea for a preliminary injunction against sanctions imposed by the institution, emphasizing that the issue at hand is not about free speech but a simple breach of contract.

Judge Timothy Savage's decision comes after a prolonged period during which the university tolerated Wax's controversial actions, including publishing racist op-eds and making unsupported derogatory remarks about minority students. The sanctions imposed were severe yet measured: a year at half pay, a public reprimand, the stripping of her named chair, and a stipulation that she must explicitly state that her views do not represent Penn Law. Despite these sanctions, Wax retains her position and tenure at the university.

Undeterred, Wax challenged these sanctions in court, leaning heavily on an argument centered around academic freedom. However, the academic freedom defense holds little weight when the professor's actions involve engaging in public discourses that stray far from scholarly work and venture into racially and socially insensitive territory.

The court noted that Wax's right to free speech does not extend to her contractual obligations with Penn Law. Wax had argued that the sanctions infringed upon her First Amendment rights, presupposing that such harm was irreparable. However, the judge highlighted that this case revolves around breach of contract, not constitutional rights.

Moreover, the supposed damage to Wax's reputation, as evidenced by the cancellation of a radio appearance and difficulties with a scheduled speech at Yale, was deemed insufficient to prove a connection to the sanctions. The judge pointed out that any reputational harm linked to the sanctions had already occurred, rendering a preliminary injunction ineffective.

The ruling also underlined that while Wax is free to pursue speaking engagements, she must clarify that she does not speak on behalf of Penn Law. This requirement aims to prevent further confusion and potential harm stemming from her controversial views.

As this legal drama unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between academic freedom and the responsibilities educators hold towards their institutions and students. The university's decision to sanction Wax, though drastic, underscores the limitations of academic freedom when it clashes with broader ethical and professional standards.

In conclusion, the court's decision highlights a significant precedent in handling cases where academic conduct crosses into realms of public discourse and controversy, reminding educators of their dual obligation to both free expression and respectful representation of their professional affiliations.