UW Board of Regents to decide on Joe Gow’s tenure after continued creation of adult films

The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents personnel committee heard arguments from the University of Wisconsin System and former University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow in a hearing Friday, determining whether Gow should retain his faculty tenure after a UW-La Crosse faculty committee unanimously recommended his removal.

The Board of Regents removed Gow as chancellor in December for appearing in adult film videos on various pornographic websites and placed him on paid administrative leave as he remained a tenured faculty member. UW-La Crosse moved to strip his tenure in June, citing his continued creation and promotion of adult film videos since his removal as chancellor. 

Under Wisconsin law, revoking tenure requires “just cause and can only be done after due notice and hearing.”

The former chancellor announced retirement plans on Aug. 30, with plans to transition to a faculty position after the conclusion of the 2023-24 school year.

The personnel committee went into closed session to discuss the case and make a recommendation for the full Board of Regents meeting.

UW System’s lawyer says Gow’s actions not protected by first amendment, Gow disagrees

Wade Harrison, a lawyer representing UW System, opened his statement by comparing Gow’s case to Safransky v. Personnel Board, a 1974 Wisconsin Supreme Court case responsible for revoking Paul R. Safransky’s tenure — a houseparent for teenage boys — due to his “homosexual status.”

Harrison claimed Gow’s case did not “involve academic freedom” and adult film videos are not protected by the First Amendment based on precedent set in San Diego v. Roe, a case in which police officer John Roe was fired for engaging in adult activities in uniform. 

Harrison also called Gow’s claims of UW-La Crosse failing to prove he engaged in unethical or illegal behavior “ridiculous.”

“The faculty committee pointed out that Dr. Gow’s pattern of behavior, demonstrating poor judgment while acting as a visible and recognizable member of the university faculty committee violated several applicable UW regulations and policies,” Harrison said.

Harrison also criticized Gow’s lack of accountability and said Gow got what he wanted out of the process — a large media presence and “great marketing opportunity” for his content. 

“Enough is enough,” Harrison said. “Dr. Joe has got to go.”

Gow’s attorney Mark Leitner stressed Gow’s case “can’t get closer to the core” of the First Amendment. Leiter, who was provided by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech legal and advocacy group, argued that because Gow’s sexual escapades occurred outside the workplace and were unrelated to Gow’s position, they are protected by the First Amendment.

Leitner also argued that sexual conduct is a matter of “vital importance” to people, recognized by the Supreme Court as early as 1957.

“Simply because Dr. Gow’s views on what promotes a healthy and stable marriage, a healthy and stable monogamy do not comport with the views of the majority of society, that doesn’t matter,” Leitner said. “We need the First Amendment to protect what’s not popular.”

Despite the unpopularity of Gow’s actions, UW-La Crosse’s interests do not trump Dr. Gow’s interests, Leitner said. The defense referenced record enrollment in UW-La Crosse’s incoming class this fall as “completely inconsistent” with any adverse effect created by Gow’s actions.

Leitner criticized UW-La Crosse’s lack of written statements despite claims by Interim Chancellor Betsy Morgan of concern about Gow from students, faculty and alumni. The defense also pointed out the lack of precedent for a case like Gow’s resulting in termination. Leitner noted a case in which a faculty member was recording confidential discussions and directly abusing colleagues.

“We don’t have anything like that here,” Leitner said.

The Board of Regents did not ask either party any questions.

Gow criticizes regents’ lack of questions, wants to get back to teaching 

In a press conference outside of Van Hise Hall after the hearing Gow, Wilson and Leitner addressed evidence in the case and Gow’s uncertain future in the UW System. 

Gow was emotional as he recalled when he was interviewed in the same building, Van Hise Hall, for the UW-La Crosse chancellor position 18 years ago.

“I looked out the window, I thought, this fantastic University of Wisconsin campus, and over there in the front of Bascom Hall is that plaque that talks about the fearless sifting and winnowing in pursuit of the truth. I wanted to be a part of that,” Gow said.

Gow said he was sad the regents did not ask any questions after both lawyers presented their sides and suggested it revealed their decision had already been made.

When asked how he would address the controversy in the classroom if he were to return to teaching, Gow said he would acknowledge the controversial past year but would “get on with the business of teaching the class.” He said his “unusual and informative” experiences could provide a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for students taking his class.

Some UW-Madison students walking between classes stopped to see what the commotion was about. Several students told the Cardinal they felt Gow should be able to keep his tenure and faculty position at UWL.

“If you wanted to, you could call pornography an art form, if you wanted to, it's his free expression. If he wanted to make that an argument, I think that's totally valid,” one student said.

Others said that if Gow decided to step away from making adult videos, they felt it would be acceptable for him to continue in his faculty position.

“People should be allowed to make mistakes and walk back from them in the appropriate way,” Matt, a student at UW-Madison, said. 

---

---