How the University’s sanctions and grievance procedures work

Amy Wax’s disciplinary proceedings are part of a rarely used procedure to hold tenured faculty accountable

SARA FORASTIERI Senior Reporter

The University’s disciplinary proceedings against University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Amy Wax, which began in January 2022, have involved complex faculty procedures. The procedures, which have been invoked by both Wax and Penn Carey Law Dean Ted Ruger, are uncommonly used but serve as the main way for the University to punish — and potentially fire — tenured faculty, whose employment is strongly protected.

In light of documents obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian which reveal that Wax has filed a grievance against Ruger, the DP examined the Faculty Handbook to break down how these complex procedures work.

Sanctions: The rare procedure used to punish tenured faculty

Sanctions are a rarely invoked procedure where some charging party believes that a faculty member has committed either a major or minor infraction of University behavioral standards. The process must “[protect] the rights of faculty members and [address] the legitimate concerns of the University,” according to the Faculty Handbook.

A range of groups is involved in the sanctions procedure. The charging party in Wax’s proceedings is Ruger, who initiated the sanctions process against Wax after repeated inflammatory remarks sparked national scrutiny.

In the sanctions procedure, Wax is known as the respondent whom Ruger has charged.

The charging party can choose to pursue major or minor sanctions depending on how severe they perceive the infraction to be. Ruger is pursuing a major infraction, which “[involves] flagrant disregard of the standards, rules, or mission of the University or the customs of scholarly communities.” Penalties for a major infraction may include terminating, suspending, or reducing the salary of the faculty member being sanctioned.

When an infraction emerges, the dean — Ruger — can give the respondent the chance to resolve the dispute informally. If the charging party and respondent cannot reach a resolution for a complaint involving a major infraction, the dean can decide to invoke a “just cause procedure” to continue pursuing sanctions. If the charging party identifies a major infraction, they will ask the chair of Penn’s Faculty Senate to form a hearing board.

In Wax's proceedings, a hearing board has been formed per Ruger's request.

The Hearing Board is composed of five tenured faculty and makes the formal judgment on the matter, serving “both an investigative and deliberative function.” After the Hearing Board is approved, the charging party sends a written statement detailing the grounds of the investigation and a recommendation of a major sanction.

According to the leaked documents, the Hearing Board has not yet conducted any hearings. However, if they conclude that there is just cause for a major sanction, a hearing will be held where the charging party has to provide “clear and convincing evidence that there is just cause for imposition of a major sanction against the respondent.”

Both the respondent — Wax — and charging party — Ruger — have the right to provide relevant evidence and witnesses.

PROVOST, from FRONT PAGE

the Red and Blue Advisory Committee, which Magill tasked last fall with finding a strategic vision for Penn’s future. Jackson was previously dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice and special adviser to the provost on diversity at Penn. He will be the second Black provost of Penn after Pritchett.

“John Jackson is one of Penn’s most respected and accomplished academic leaders,” Magill wrote in the announcement. “He is an acclaimed scholar who has had extraordinary success in recruiting outstanding