LACROSSE, Wis. – The chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, Joe Gow, claims his First Amendment right of free expression was violated when UW System regents fired him. But so far Gow hasn’t filed a legal objection. Would Gow have a case based on First Amendment law if he goes to court? The First Amendment prohibits any government entity, like the UW regents, from “abridging” free expression. The regents acted against Gow for sexually explicit videos that typically are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. But there are nuances.
A legal test: Job performance
Co-stars. Joe Gow and Carmen Wilson. Married to each other. Advocates for positive sex.
A constitutional scholar at the UW-Madison campus, Howard Schweber, pointed to an exception to the First Amendment — when, for example, an employee’s ability to do a job has been compromised. The regents have expressed their outrage at Gow’s videos but didn’t challenge whether Gow’s job performance was affected. In fact, nobody at UW-Lacrosse seemed eveb aware of Gow’s videos. The videos were an off-campus sideline that didn’t involve university resources. In court, it would seem, the regents would need to produce evidence that Gow’s ability to do his work as chancellor was diminished. Examples could be a dramatic drop in enrollment or a drop in fund-raising. A fact is that the videos and two earlier positive- sex Gow books go back 2017. For six years there had been no hullabaloo. In his 17 years as chancellor Gow has been popular. While some LaCrosse people have shared the regents’ sudden outrage in letters to the editor, the campus reaction seems supportive. Students have circulated to restore Gow to his $230,000-a-year position as chancellor. One student was quoted in LaCrosse Tribune interview as calling Gow “a good dude.” No one has called for a faculty vote of no confidence, which the usual channel to remove an unpopular campus administrator.
Schweber. Asks whether regents can prove that videos affected job performance.
Faculty rights: Academic freedom
Although the UW regents might succeed in a court battle for removing Gow from his administrative post, a knottier issue is whether they can keep Gow off the faculty, as they have proposed as an additional punitive step. Long before the Gow video issue came to light. he had said he planned to leave his chancellorship this spring and take a faculty position. Such is standard practice in higher education fir retiring administrators. As a faculty member, Gow would be protected by the concept of “academic freedom” which bars a faculty member from being dismissed for expressing views outside the mainstream. The idea is that academe should a place to explore and discuss any and all sorts of ideas as essential to the quest for truths. This includes performance – from theater to visual arts to music and presumably to sex — that pushes boundaries. Historical examples are legion:
> Galileo Galilei in the 1600s on Earth being spherical.
> Charles Darwin in the 1850s on evolution.
> Rachel Carson in the 1950s on environmental risks.
> Martin Luther King Jr. in the 1960s on social justice.
This suggests that UW regents might have a harder time keeping Gow off the faculty, according to UW-Madison professor Anuj Desai. Gow says he’s an advocate for what he calls “positive sex.” In effect, says Desai, the issue is whether the regents can ignore the academic freedom that it bestowed on Gow in his 2006 contract when he was appointed chancellor. That contract guarantees Gow a right to join the university’s Communication Studies Department faculty with the usual protections for free inquiry, exploration and expression.
Desai. Sees Gow protected by the usual tenure rules for free expression of any and all ideas.