Support truly
independent journalism
A faculty committee has recommended that a former chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse be removed from his tenured position over his involvement in adult entertainment.
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that the committee's unanimous decision over Joe Gow sets up a vote by the University of Wisconsin's Board of Regents to fire him.
Gow is on paid leave because he holds a tenured faculty appointment and wants to return to teaching. The regents fired Gow as chancellor in December 2023 for creating pornographic videos posted on adult websites.
At a hearing last month, the school argued in favor of firing Gow for unethical conduct, refusing to cooperate with an investigation and violating computer policies.
A report on the faculty committee's decision obtained by the newspaper said it was not unethical to create pornographic videos but Gow's reaction to publicity over them raised issues. It said instead of responding “in a way that supports the best interests of the university,” he exploited his position on the La Crosse faculty to generate more interest and revenue from the videos.
Gow was unsurprised by the decision. He said his videos and two books he and his wife Carmen have published about their experiences in adult films are protected by the First Amendment.
“Carmen and I remain firmly committed to defending free speech and expression,” he said, adding that he would be ready for a public hearing before the Board of Regents. There is no date set for the hearing.
The committee cited three instances of alleged unethical conduct. First, Gow invited adult film star Nina Hartley to speak on campus in 2018 without disclosing that Gow and his wife had made a sex video with her. The committee was unmoved by Gow's argument that it wasn't a business relationship requiring disclosure.
The committee also questioned Gow's “intellectual honesty” for describing the couple's two books as true accounts despite acknowledging the authors took “creative liberties.”
And it chastised Gow for allegedly not cooperating in the investigation despite having no job duties while on paid leave. Gow had offered to answer questions in writing and said he was not informed about the completion of the investigation.
The panel dismissed one allegation, finding insufficient evidence that Gow deleted information from his computer to hinder the investigation.
