Controversy Erupts as University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse Chancellor is Fired
The University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse finds itself embroiled in a heated debate following the recent dismissal of its 63-year-old chancellor, Joe Gow. While the university has not publicly disclosed the reason for his termination, Gow believes that he is being punished due to pornographic videos he and his wife produced and shared online. He asserts that his dismissal infringes upon his constitutionally protected right to free speech.
Speaking with various news outlets, Gow revealed that he and his wife had been creating such content for years, but had recently decided to release it more widely on dedicated adult websites. He emphasized that their materials did not mention the university or their positions there. Additionally, the couple published two books under pseudonyms, addressing their experiences in a similar vein. Gow insists that their work is covered by the First Amendment, is legal, and does not incite violence. He expresses concern over the lack of due process in his termination, as the university failed to cite any specific policy violation or offer him a hearing.
In response to Gow's argument, it is worth noting a 2004 Supreme Court decision that limits a public officer's First Amendment rights when issues of public concern are involved. The court held that pornographic materials generally do not fall into this category. Furthermore, it is suggested that Gow, as a public employee, may have agreed to a code of conduct upon assuming the role of chancellor.
Gow acknowledges the 2004 decision but asserts that societal perspectives on adult consensual sexuality have evolved significantly since then, acknowledging the transformative impact of modern technology. He clarifies that his employment agreement did not discuss codes of conduct or morality, rather emphasizing the importance of setting a good example. From his perspective, his actions with his wife exemplify freedom of expression and free speech. Gow believes that the Board of Regents' decision contradicts their proclaimed support for these principles.
Critics argue that, irrespective of the legality or implementation of Gow's personal endeavors, his use of pseudonyms in books and previous controversy related to inviting an adult film star onto campus indicate an awareness of potential consequences and conflict with his position as a university chancellor. Additionally, some note that the explicit nature of his published materials casts doubt on their classification as issues of public concern or public service.
Gow responds to such criticisms, asserting that the couple's videos are not violent or exploitative and feature genuine conversations with performers, providing unique insight into the industry. He argues that the existing taboos surrounding adult content hinder open dialogue, and their work invites discussion and understanding.
As Gow departs from his position as chancellor, he had initially planned to transition to a faculty role, given his prior experience as a professor. However, uncertainties arise from the university system's statement regarding an investigation into his tenure, leaving his future at the institution uncertain.
The situation continues to spark debate over the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of public officers, and the intersection of personal endeavors with professional positions. As both sides of the controversy dig in their heels, spectators eagerly await further developments to gauge the potential impact on future discourse and policies surrounding issues of public concern.
