MADISON, Wis. – A significant First Amendment rights case is unfolding as a former University of Wisconsin chancellor fights to retain his tenured teaching position despite facing removal for unethical behavior. Joe Gow, who held the chancellorship at UW-La Crosse for nearly 17 years, is set to present his case to a personnel committee of the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents on Friday.
Since being placed on paid leave following his dismissal as chancellor in 2023, Gow has been advocating for the restoration of his tenure and the chance to teach communications courses. His termination followed revelations regarding explicit videos posted on adult websites, prompting the university’s faculty committee to unanimously recommend his dismissal based on concerns that he had leveraged his position to profit from the content.
University attorneys are expected to argue that Gow’s actions damaged the institution’s reputation, undermining its mission. They contend that his inability to acknowledge his poor judgment poses a significant risk should he be allowed to return to his academic role. The attorneys emphasized that the potential for further harm to the university’s reputation is considerable if Gow reinstates in the classroom.
The committee was scheduled to review testimony behind closed doors before making a recommendation to the full Board of Regents next week, as the case garners nationwide interest not only for its sensational aspects but also for the broader implications regarding free speech.
Gow claims that his adult films and accompanying literature, co-created with his wife, fall under First Amendment protections. His legal representation argues that penalizing legal speech contradicts the Board of Regents’ professed commitment to free expression on campuses.
The university is pursuing Gow’s termination due to allegations of unethical conduct, insubordination during an investigation, and breaches of computer use policies, all of which contravene the standards outlined in the UW-La Crosse employee handbook.
Despite maintaining that the materials were produced independently and did not reference his university affiliation, Gow has faced criticism for past decisions, including inviting a pornographic actress to speak on campus—an event funded with student fees.
As the situation develops, opposition from Gow’s department chair, who questions his readiness to teach after two decades away from the classroom, complicates his path back to faculty status. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for both Gow and the university moving forward.
