Originally published at: Man who is University of Wisconsin chancellor and also a porn star loses one of his jobs - Boing Boing
…
7 Likes
“Only Fans? Tell me more!”
4 Likes
Sounds like he’s harming no one and it doesn’t negatively affect his work in any way. The worst thing I’m hearing is that he still uses Twitter.
37 Likes
Probably in the minority, but I support this guy. No one was harmed. He and his wife have sex and have sex-themed interests. Who cares? Puritan BS.
24 Likes
From the article there is no reason to not support this guy. I would expect most the people here to be supportive of sex workers in general. The fact he’s a man should be irrelevant unless he is somehow abusing a power imbalance, like using his University position to coerce college students or something similar, but no mention of any of that type of behavior.
22 Likes
Tenure doesn’t mean they can’t fire him at all. Moral turpitude is a commonly cited (and sufficiently vague) reason, which could apply here. I wouldn’t agree as he’s apparently not doing anybody any harm, but it’s up to the college to set those standards.
6 Likes
Right (though he didn’t have tenure as chancellor; he does have it in what I think is a joint appointment as a professor).
We may well apply our own sex positivity and support of free speech rights to this situation, but context does matter.
The board that demoted him (or “fired” him as chancellor, as he steps down to tenured faculty status) cited their own “disgust” over what indeed does amount to his lack of moral turpitude (at least in the eyes of many, such as conservative parents), as well as the “reputational harm” caused to the university by his actions.
Reputational harm can translate to financial harm, and in a conservative rural area, I can imagine parents refusing to pay tuition at “that immoral college that’s run by a porn star.”
Also, from this article:
Gow served as chancellor under a limited appointment contract. UW System policy says limited appointees don’t have a right to receive minimum notice before termination.
Firing a tenured faculty member is more cumbersome, with specific steps laid out in state code. UW System President Jay Rothman initiated the faculty dismissal process by requesting newly appointed UW-La Crosse Chancellor Betsy Morgan investigate Gow.
“I don’t think he has much of a leg to stand on for his chancellor position,” said Donald Downs, a retired UW-Madison professor with expertise in free speech and the First Amendment. “He’s got a better case for his tenured position.”
Gow has said what he did with his wife was in his capacity as a private citizen.
But Downs said the privacy claim actually undercuts Gow’s First Amendment argument because the court’s balancing test requires the speech at issue to address a matter of public concern. The test pits the interests of the public university as an employer against the free speech interests of its employees.
“If the chancellor had said something clearly of public interest involving core principles of the university, and the regents, for whatever reason, didn’t like that, regardless of the contract, it would pose a legitimate question of free speech,” he said. “But this is a purely private matter.”
Scott Schneider, an expert in higher education law, agreed with Downs. Sex videos were not addressing a matter of public concern.
“There’s no First Amendment or free speech issue,” he said. “That’s absurd.”
Gow’s faculty appointment is more of a contract claim, Schneider said. The university must decide whether there is “just cause” to revoke his tenured status.
Schneider said he’s seen professors at other institutions lose their tenured status for what he said were less egregious reasons than Gow’s.
10 Likes
Well it’s not entirely up to the college to define that term. Legal precedent would have a say.
It sounds like most of what he was doing was porn-adjacent. And what was porn was entirely consensual and with his wife. I think he has a point about the First Amendment. It’ll be interesting to see how this turns out.
9 Likes
It was not a lack of it - quite the opposite.
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and until 1976 in Canada that refers to “an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community”.[1]…
… The concept of “moral turpitude” might escape precise definition, but it has been described as an “act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man.”[3]
I suspect it has always been a highly subjective ‘offence’ available to be used to punish someone who acts beyond what whatever the current polite society of the day finds acceptable, but which may not actually be illegal.
4 Likes
Sure, he does have a point, but it seems to me that the university’s interest in counteracting “reputational harm” may well supercede his right to free speech.
Ah of course, thanks for the correction, I’ll edit accordingly.
5 Likes
And I agree, moral turpitude is all about reputational ‘harm’ and a useful tool for defence against such harm in the eyes of those who think it has been ‘harmed’.
A more opportunistic organisation would use his extra-curricular activities as a marketing opportunity. 
But, yeah, donors, of course. Sigh.
5 Likes
I expect to see the outcome splashed all across our screens.
4 Likes
Ah, yes. I think that’s the 1 and three-quarters Amendment to the US Constitution: Institutions have a right not to have their reputations sullied by the actions of their employees when not at work, even where those actions are entirely legal and protected by any of the other Amendments.
All snark aside, if his actions were illegal or not protected 1st Amendment speech, I would agree with you. Or if he were defaming the University somehow, then I would agree with you. I don’t think this falls in that category at all.
ETA: I think the other important factor here is that this is a state University. If this were a private employer, they could obviously condition his employment on certain speech and behavior outside of work, to a point. But here the employer is the state. So I think the First Amendment comes into play, where it wouldn’t with a private employer. But this country is still seriously hung up on sex, so who knows?
13 Likes
Genius marketing move and he’ll probably win his lawsuit.
2 Likes
Ken White’s substack has a pretty good analysis of the 1st Amendment employment claim. Conclusion is it probably fails.
7 Likes
We’ve been getting that kind of garbage in the UW system for years now. The GOP here really likes to play up their indoctrination talk and yeah, I’m sure this will come into it. On the other hand, the GOP in Wisconsin is really going after DEI right now. This case involves white cishet monogamous people, so I’m surprised Robin Vos isn’t praising him. 
5 Likes
Not everyone wants to see how the sausage is made.
3 Likes
I kept expecting to read that he had been spearheading some anti-porn initiative, or had instituted a policy that denied reproductive care at the university, or had shut down classes about queer issues, or something. All the stories of right-wing hypocrites have really trained my expectations in these kinds of stories, I must say.
3 Likes
His job is to shmooze people. To shake their hands. So it really does affect it, I think. Even I would need to have him verifiably lysolled from the elbow down before going anywhere near the canapes at a UoW luncheon in his presence.
3 Likes
This was probably part of his plan. He’s near retirement age anyway and he and his wife have this side gig that they really enjoy. Quietly retiring doesn’t generate publicity for their videos. Getting fired and lots of national media coverage generates thousands of views. I’ll admit that I checked out their cooking channel on YouTube. It’s all plant-based foods which appeals to me. I’m not interested in anything beyond that but good for them for doing what makes them happy.
2 Likes
