��ݮ��ƵAPP����

A University of Wisconsin-La Crosse faculty committee formally recommended last week that professor Joe Gow lose his tenured faculty role for the on-his-own-time activity of making pornographic videos with his wife and writing books about the experience. The recommendation, which undermines what tenure is meant to protect — including faculty members’ right to express themselves outside the classroom — clashes with the First Amendment and threatens the rights of all UW faculty.

UW already  Gow from his role as chancellor in December after  he made the videos. Under continued  from  and donors who wanted Gow gone from his faculty role, too, the faculty hearing committee unanimously recommended Gow’s dismissal in a decision publicized late Friday. 

The recommendation now goes to the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents, who will decide whether Gow will face termination.

Tenure provides vital protections for faculty, including the right to engage in extramural speech — speech outside the classroom — without fear of administrative discipline. This protects faculty members with dissenting or disfavored views from institutional punishment.

FIRE statement on disciplinary hearings against Joe Gow

News

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse chancellor Joe Gow was fired for producing porn off the clock.

Read More

This is for good reason. Well-settled law holds that government bureaucrats don’t get to decide how we talk about politics, who we choose as friends, and whether or how we worship — because they can’t do it in a principled way. Limits on the state’s ability to punish one’s personal sexual expression are no different. 

The law also prohibits public universities from punishing extramural expression when it has no bearing on a professor’s ability to fulfill his faculty role. Gow’s publication of “provocative content” criticized by the UW faculty committee is no exception. Pornography has long enjoyed legal protection, and if we fired every scholar whose personal interests offended someone, precious few professors would be left to teach. 

As ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� wrote last month, “Academic freedom generally protects faculty from punishment for what they do or say off the clock. The same law that shields faculty from getting fired or punished for their political opinions or associations also protects their right to create porn.”

Tenure further protects scholars like Gow from dismissal except for just cause, defined by UW as misconduct “related directly and substantially to the fitness of the academic staff member in professional capacity,” such as fraud, violence, sexual harassment or other serious wrongdoing. Witnesses at Gow’s hearing spoke at length about how his hobby offended many inside and outside UW-La Crosse, but proffered no evidence that any of this impacted his ability to teach.

While the university alleged that, during his 16 years as chancellor, Gow occasionally used his university email to save passwords and print out release forms for adult websites, it failed to show how this rendered him unfit to serve as a professor. Faculty would never be stripped of tenure and lose their jobs for occasionally scrolling through Facebook, managing their Fantasy Football teams, printing a return shipping slip, or researching gardening tips in their offices. Gow’s interests were perhaps more unusual, but no more disruptive to his work. They certainly don’t constitute serious misconduct “related directly and substantially to the fitness of the academic staff member in professional capacity.”

UW-La Crosse also claimed Gow damaged the university’s reputation. Indeed, several major donors threatened to withhold donations if Gow remains on the faculty, and state lawmakers also promised to cut support over Gow. But universities cannot betray the First Amendment merely to save face — or appease donors. 

Universities cannot betray the First Amendment merely to save face — or appease donors. 

As a general proposition, the First Amendment and academic freedom protect professors from the machinations of whichever party controls the state legislature, or who controls faculty governing bodies, university administrations, or boards of regents. Punishing faculty speech for offending big donors and legislators imperils the many professors who openly criticize elected officials or take minority views. Scholars studying pressing political and social issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance, may refrain from sharing their honest opinions to avoid university punishment. 

FIRE calls on UW-La Crosse and the UW System to uphold faculty free speech rights by allowing Gow to teach. 

And we’re ensuring he has legal support. ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� has connected him with a First Amendment attorney through our Faculty Legal Defense Fund, a program that provides faculty at public institutions facing free speech violations with experienced counsel, free of charge. We encourage any professor facing discipline for their protected speech to contact ��ݮ��ƵAPP����.

Gow may present a unique fact pattern, but he is not the first and will unfortunately not be the last professor colleges punish for what they say off hours. Punishing Gow sets a bad precedent for faculty who may want to speak out about the election, gender issues, religion, or any other topic that may offend someone. Upholding free speech means standing on principle, especially when doing so is difficult or unpopular. UW-La Crosse should show some backbone, not pander to politicians. 

Let Gow teach.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to ��ݮ��ƵAPP���� today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734)