MAYBE HE SHOULD HAVE STUCK TO SUMMER STOCK.

Last fall, the University of Wisconsin system removed LaCrosse chancellor Joe Gow for conduct unbecoming.  The university at LaCrosse is in the middle of a for cause investigation stripping him of tenure in communication studies.

The former chancellor, Joe Gow, said [in April] that interim Chancellor Betsy Morgan filed three charges against him March 29, accusing him of unethical conduct, failing to cooperate with an investigation, and using UW-La Crosse computers to produce pornographic materials.

Gow declined to share a letter from Morgan detailing the charges, saying he didn't want to look as though he is trying to play out his case in the media.

But he said the ethics charge may be connected to his writings in two pornographic e-books. He declined to go into detail. The allegation of failure to cooperate stems from his refusal to speak to an outside law firm investigating the matter without an attorney, he said. He denied using any UW state-owned equipment or state dollars to produce porn.

It's not pretty.  There's always the tension between professionalism and transgressivity in the university.  So it is playing out in LaCrosse.

Some Wisconsin Republicans have embraced the system’s efforts to fire Gow, arguing that his behavior is amoral and unbefitting of a public university employee. But free speech advocates have decried the move as an attempt by the system to save face in the wake of an embarrassing scandal. They argue that firing Gow from his tenured faculty job violates the First Amendment, which protects sexually explicit speech—including the pornography Gow made outside the university.

It verges into misappropriating state property territory: are we headed for a pass wherein faculty shy away from using their home computers and office supplies for academic work because the boundaries on the use of office computers are elastic?

Gow is also accused of refusing to cooperate with the investigation into his firing, including by allegedly deleting information from university-owned computers. Related charges on technology-use policies allege that Gow received “vendor emails” at his work account “for sex toys and other sex products,” and configured web browsers on a university laptop to remember login credentials for seven pornographic sites, among other things.

The former chancellor is continuing to rely on freedom of speech defenses.

“At root here, what we have is a situation where I exercised my First Amendment freedoms, did things on my own time, and put them on social media, on the internet. And that’s what this case ultimately is about. Do we have a First Amendment freedom to do that?” he said.

Gow also disputes the notion he made money off the videos, as UW officials have claimed; if he earned more than $1,000 a year from them, he would be required as a public official to report the income. Instead, Gow said his video ventures were costly rather than profitable.

Which would have been no big deal had he and the lady made a few bucks from summer stock.

The notoriety, this Free Press column suggests, might have come after the news broke last Festive Season.

Today, they rake in “a couple thousand dollars” a month from their adult content, which Gow says features “pretty standard sexuality”—meaning no BDSM, no hitting, no violence. For $7.99, buyers can see the couple pretending to house-hunt with India Summer, Adult Video News’ two-time “MILF Performer of the Year,” who seduces both of them in the master bedroom. For slightly more—$9.99—one can purchase a compilation of the money shots.

Gow calls the shoots “thrilling,” revealing that he and his wife spent over $80,000 to produce their content, which appears on OnlyFans under the username “Sexy Happy Couple.” And he maintains that they’ve done nothing illegal—“no one is getting harmed.”

Whatever. But he should be tossed for the way he defends his, um, hobby.  “There’s the First Amendment. This is 2024.”  Any time somebody invokes the year as a justification for a stance, it's either for lack of a persuasive argument or as a cheap attempt to define who the cool kids are.  He repeats the same weak justification later in the interview.

“The notion that we shouldn’t be talking about sexuality is, like, from the Middle Ages. This is 2024, right? Sexuality is arguably the most popular material on the internet.”

It might be, as the show biz couple also argue, that with the adult content being so easily available and the rabbit culture being part of the LaCrosse value proposition, that there is academic merit to the work, never mind how that busts down the work-hobby distinction essential to the former chancellor keeping his professorship.  The hobby might still have its appeal.

If he were to return to teaching, Gow told WTMJ’s Wis. Morning News he wouldn’t rule out posting more pornographic videos.

“(My wife, Carmen, and I) would want to retain our right to do what we do in our personal lives on our own time,” Gow told WTMJ. “I don’t know if that would mean more videos. We’re not going to rule that out in exchange for me keeping my teaching job.”

“We’re not champing at the bit to (post more videos).”

The hearing panel has not finished its deliberations and the university declined to comment for the story.