The University of Wisconsin–La Crosse is embroiled in a controversy surrounding its Chancellor Joe Gow after it was revealed he and his wife made porn videos under the name “Sexy Happy Couple.” He has been removed from his position, though the now unhappy couple could now challenge the action in the courts.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that “Gow, 63, and his wife, Carmen Wilson, appear in videos on several porn websites using ‘Sexy Happy Couple’ as the account name, a moniker also used on at least two social media accounts.” It further noted that “the couple also published two books under pseudonyms detailing their experiences in the adult film industry. Both books and the social media accounts feature photos clearly showing Gow (pictured) and Wilson.”
Notably, Wilson chaired the search committee that selected Gow and then served as his chief of staff from 2008-2011. The couple married in 2014.
Gow has not been subtle about his interest in porn. He previously invited a porn performer to come to campus as part of a “Free Speech Week” event and reimbursed the speaker’s fee out of his own money,
The action by the Board of Regents was based on the impact of the scandal on the school. UW System President Jay Rothman declared “In recent days, we learned of specific conduct by Dr. Gow that has subjected the university to significant reputational harm. His actions were abhorrent.”
Gow will retain his position as a tenured professor, though a complaint is reportedly pending.
In becoming Chancellor, Gow signed a contract that stated that “The Chancellor may not engage in any activity that may be adverse to, or competitive or inconsistent with the interests of the University of Wisconsin System.”
However, this was conduct that was both legal and conducted outside of his official duties without reference to his academic or administrative positions.
I cannot claim to understand this desire of some people to post videos of themselves having sex. It is reminiscent of the recent controversy involving Virginia Democratic candidate Susanna Gibson who was shown to have engaged in sex acts on the Internet with her husband. Gibson and her husband posted more than a dozen videos that were archived on a site called Chaturbate in September 2022 shortly before she announced her candidacy for office. Viewers were told that they could pay for her to perform specific sex acts “for tips.”
Gibson has made dubious threats to sue over the disclosures of the videos and even alleged that the disclosures constituted a sex crime. She attempted to portray the controversy as an attack on all women. It seemed to work. Gibson came close to winning the recent election despite the scandal as the Democratic candidate for the state legislature.
The difference is that no one suggested that Gibson was barred from serving as a state legislature due to her porn history.
One does not have to share Gow’s fetish or approve of his videos to raise concerns over the free speech implications of this action.
Engaging in pornographic films is an expressive act and has free speech protection, in my view. The objections of many to such films is moral. While the couple is married, many view porn as sinful and corrupting in society. However, Gow is allowed to hold opposing views and to engage in such expressive acts.
The question is whether the contract alters the question. Many contracts, including media contracts, contain such provisions. The standard “morals clause” is triggered by criminal conduct or conduct that brings “public disrepute, scandal, or embarrassment.” These clauses are written broadly to protect the news organizations and their “brand.”
Yet, this is a state university effectively punishing Gow for arguably protected speech. Part of the concern is where the university draws the line. Gow previously sponsored an event with a porn star on campus and that was not viewed as violative. What if he simply produced porn videos but was not featured in them? What if he advocated for the rights of porn actors or consumers?
Universities have historically cracked down on those with unpopular social, political, or religious views. Conservatives and libertarians have long been targeted by such campaigns. We cannot protect some while exempting others from such protections.
These cases involving public employees with porn histories have regularly arisen from lunch ladies to teachers to students. However, they often involve primary and secondary levels of education. This involves a college where the students are adults and capable of making their own judgments about moral or sexual questions.
This could prove a novel but significant free speech case in delineating the scope of protected speech or conduct for state employees outside of their employment.
UW system is filled with far left lunatics… As a wisconsin resident, i’m just surprised he didn’t film himself doing young boys
I think Joe Gow may have planned for this to be in the news.
He posted not explicit videos advertising his porn on YouTube. In the videos, he and his wife use their first names and show their faces. You could find the videos by searching for vegan cooking. They were restricted to 18+ users, but on YouTube, 18+ just means topics inappropriate for children are being discussed. I’ve seen news stories behind the 18+ wall.
In August, old a UW Madison (not La Crosse) student paper he was planning to make a video with his wife called cooking with Carmen. He did not say it was porn, and the title is different from what he used, but I think you could find his YouTube channel by searching that.
He was retiring in May and is wealthy. My guess is he wants to get publicity for his porn career, and he enjoys the exhibitionism of people watching him.
There was an event on campus where a student said an art professor touched her inappropriately. She felt Joe Gow ignored it. She then posted it on social media and finally the UW system investigated and found she and many other girls had been violated. The student felt Joe and the professor had a connection ( Facebook photos of the two together were deleted around this time). Students protested Joe’s mishandling of this event. This event will likely resurface with Joe’s recent publicity. I know some people at major news outlets are investigating.
Responding to previous:
Prostitution is when the person paying money receives in-person real sex in return. This is not what Gibson did.
Possibly you could make that far reach with Jerry Falwell Jr and his wife having sex with the pool boy – since the pool boy actually got paid. Also Virginia residents governed by the law you cited.
There is a difference between exposing the extra-curricular activities of Susanna Gibson to the electorate and firing Mr. Gow. The electorate is not bound by free speech principles in casting their votes. Indeed, the entire point of an election campaign is to discriminate for or against a speaker based on his or her speech. In addition, the offer of Ms. Gibson to engage in specific sexual acts is probably prohibited by prostitution and / or solicitation laws in Virginia.
If Mr. Gow and his wife just posted their videos to the web, I would agree that there are constitutional protections for what he did. However, if he, like Ms. Gibson, performed in the videos for economic gain, he has committed an act of prostitution. Regardless of the First Amendment protection of the resulting video, that would would be a crime in Wisconsin. Wis. Stat. §944.30.
“Puritanism” (America’s Puritan heritage that originated from Europe at America’s founding) has generally been bad for America.
This Puritan worldview creates an expectation, by citizens, that our leaders and clergy should be perfect almost saint-like.
This is an impossible goal because none of us are perfect. The Judeo-Christian religion is actually premised upon the reality that none of us are perfect, it we expect our leaders and clergy to meet that impossible goal.
In the above article by Turley: no laws were broken, this was between consenting adults, the couple didn’t use their real names or the name of their employer and only the audience looking at the porn site were exposed to it.
From a Judeo-Christian view, it’s no worse than members of Congress getting caught committing adultery or a president of America’s largest Christian college participating in a threesome with his wife (reported in all the newspapers). Most of these far worse sinners rarely resign.
Bottom Line: So what! Nobody is perfect, this is not a offense requiring anyone to resign. Maybe that’s a healthy message for all children to learn – nobody’s a saint!
Purple Anon: Years ago during the 1960s comedian Allan Sherman wrote a long satire about Puritanism in the U,S. titled, “The Rape of the A.P.E.” (American Puritan Ethic). It was brilliant. I read the paperback edition. RIP, Allan Sherman. I’m guessing nobody on this blog remembers him.
Correction: “The Rape of the A.P.E.” was first published in 1973 by Playboy Press.
I think there’s a difference between engaging in immoral behavior and encouraging others to engage in it. Both are wrong, but it’s easier to move on from the first.
It’s good to have strong values, but don’t try to take a holier than thou attitude toward others. I think this was Jerry Falwell’s problem.
“. . . has free speech protection . . .”
Sometimes JT treats free speech as a hobbyhorse. This is one of them.
Chancellor Joe Gow “has been removed from his position . . .”
Too bad he’s not a nihilistic black female with a long history of plagiarism. He’d still have his job.
Prof. Turley,
I think the issues here are more complex than you address.
Being chancellor is not the same as being a professor.
The fundimental complication in this instance is that Wisconsin is a state university.
Once again another reason for getting the state OUT of education and the rest of private life.
Regardless first amendment protections are stronger for those in the state employ – Especially when their Expression is NOT offered as part of their position.
If Wisconsin was a private college – Gow could be fired – absent strong protections in his contract or a strong free speech policy on the part of the college. Even then the standards would be different for students, professors and chancellors – with the latter enjying the least protection.
When you take on the role of figurehead, you are responsible for way your image reflacts on the institution you represent – regardless of whether you are acting officially or not.
I beleive that would also hold true for Chancellors at State Colleges. Gow should lose his chancellorship, but likely can not be fired as a professor.
If only they had hung a palestinian flag in the background and promised to donate all proceeds to Gaza relief
If someone derives pleasure from having sex in front of an audience, they have a fetish. If they get paid to do so, they are a sex worker. I have never understood the distinction between a legal sex worker, paid to have sex to make porn, and an illegal sex worker, a prostitute. They both have sex for money.
Adult porn is legal, so Gow and his wife were legal sex workers. Once you put sex videos on the internet, it’s going to get discovered by your workplace. Legal sex workers need to disclose these videos during employment interviews, and employers need to be specific about whether making porn or videos that are sexual in nature would be allowed, or injurious to the reputation of the business. Making money off sex videos seems to be more popular, with venues such as Only Fans cropping up, cutting out the middle man of production companies.
Personally, I find it disturbing that anyone would sell videos of themselves having sex. It’s like Main Character Syndrome taken to the extreme. Porn is a tragic industry, infamous for preying upon people with a history of drug and sex abuse. Strangely, making porn has become a more common fetish for the bored.
However, I can’t understand how Gow making porn would somehow be more injurious to the reputation of universities than the rampant antisemitism currently making higher education unsafe for Jewish students.
Such videos would be inappropriate for someone applying to work with minors, such as a teacher in elementary, middle, or high school. Even though it would be illegal for students to access a porn site, word of the activity would still get out, upset parents, and disrupt student discipline.
This is a university, where it’s not uncommon to find fluff classes to waste student’s tuition money, such as course on female empowerment on porn. Having a professor who actually makes porn doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility.
There would still need to be a strict code of conduct with no personal relationships between professor and student.
There seems to be a larger issue here of double standards in universities. Conservatives are harassed and discriminated against in the hiring process. The president of Harvard stands accused of blatant plagiarism, with the accusation that she has been allowed to remain because she is a black woman, a diversity hire. Students have been expelled for committing a fraction of her alleged crimes. Most universities have taken a decidedly antisemitic stance against Israel, in support of terrorist group Hamas.
Considering how far Left universities have gone, I’ve rather expected that professors would be content creators on Only Fans, or whatever site Gow used. It’s gross, and shows poor judgment, but it would be more of an employment issue in a Christian university.
This is an interesting free speech issue. From an employer perspective, employee’s speech on their own time can negatively impact a business, and profit. For example, even if an employee was perfectly polite to all customers, if he was videoed attending a KKK rally, and it came out that he worked at a particular business, that small business could be driven to close from protests and boycotts. That protected free speech cast a shadow on the hypothetical workplace. Employers cannot be expected to just be ruined because free speech is protected from government persecution.
Are you talking about decent people or rabble, effluvium, the great unwashed masses?
It may be that most fathers wouldn’t want that for their daughters.
You, on the other hand, appear to praise abject depravity, by suggestively, enthusiastically entertaining a discussion on the subject.
How odd.
Steaming turd^^^
A spiritualist thought is every word or thought you put out there survives in the Cosmos. Watching what you think or say is smart even if this is not true or verifiable. It certainly is true of the Internet. Some search terms are more revealing than others. Turn on the TOR browser and search on DuckDuckGo, and be amazed what you can find about own internet tracks.