Last year, University of Wisconsin campus chancellor Joe Gow was suspended from his position at the college after the school was made aware of pornographic films that Gow and his wife had produced and published on adult websites. Normally, when we hear anything about the intersection of pornography and education, the verdict is handed down rather swiftly, but Gow has been fighting the ruling for more than a year, claiming that the school was infringing on his First Amendment rights. Yesterday he took his case before the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to try to convince them to rescind the order and allow him to return to his previous duties. The more we look into the details of what actually transpired, the more it appears that the facts may play out in his favor. (CBS News)

In a closely watched First Amendment rights case, a former University of Wisconsin campus chancellor who was fired after making pornographic films with his wife prepared to argue Friday for keeping his tenured teaching position even as he faces removal for unethical behavior.

Joe Gow, who had served as chancellor of UW-La Crosse for nearly 17 years, hoped to convince a personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents to recommend he be allowed to retain tenure and return to teaching communications courses.

Gow has been on paid leave from his faculty position since the regents fired him as chancellor in 2023, shortly after university leaders became aware of the videos that were posted on pornographic websites.

Gow's behavior has been "unethical, hypocritical and unacceptable," university attorney Wade Harrison told six regents who form the personnel committee on Friday.

There seems to be little disagreement that the material produced by Gow and his wife wasn't simply a few racy pictures. This was hard-core pornography, sometimes involving "guest stars" as part of the performances. But all of the "action" appears to have been strictly consensual and there were never any minors involved, so some of the worst potential offenses seem to be off the table. They never mentioned the name of the University where Gow worked, nor was any filming done on campus. This seems to have been entirely a "side project" from which the couple was drawing a sizable income.

Even if any of the students at the university became aware of the videos and viewed them, the vast majority of college students are either at least 18 years of age or within weeks or months of reaching that age. Also, they would have had to seek out the material on their own since it was not published by any of the college's media outlets. There was one marginally questionable incident where Gow invited a porn actress to come speak at a university event (for which she was paid), but no reference was made to Gow's videos, at least one of which she appeared in.

The university is arguing that Gow's videos, e-books, and other adult material fall under the category of free speech, but they are not "protected speech" under his employment contract. That doesn't make a lot of sense because employers typically cannot enter into contracts with employees forcing them to forgo their Constitutional rights. You are free to describe Gow and his wife's filmmaking activities as "unconventional" or any number of other adjectives, but before the school can terminate his professional career, they need to be able to demonstrate that he knowingly violated the law or at least broke the boundaries of propriety in a way that involved the university.

The final question for the board to address is that of who the real "victims" are in all of this. These were all consenting adults engaged in adult behavior and recording it for online consumption in forums that are supposed to be restricted in access to prevent minors from seeing them. The board members who participated on Friday will keep their findings secret until they are released to the full board next week. If they find against Joe Gow, I won't be surprised if he winds up with a significant lawsuit where he likely stands a decent chance of prevailing.