• ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sounds like it was a cooking show with porn star guests where they discussed sex positivity while cooking.

    And then they provided links for the porn stars accounts and such in their videos, allowing media to call the cooking show porn with a straight face.

    (edit: for the record it appears they did in fact make porn. Still, tame as shit IMO.)

    • krellor@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I read a NYT article on this and the videos included them having sex with the pornstars and they also published their own porn videos.

      In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Gow and Ms. Wilson said that they believe they were fired over the videos, which included sex scenes together and with others under the username Sexy Happy Couple. Both said they felt it was wrong for the university to punish them over the videos, arguing that doing so infringes on their free speech rights.

      Mr. Gow, 63, said he and his wife, 56, have made videos together for years but had decided recently to make them publicly available on porn websites and had been pleased by the response. They said they never mentioned the university or their jobs in the videos, several of which have racked up hundreds of thousands of views. The couple also has made a series of videos in which they cook meals with porn actors and then have sex.

      The article also includes some basic legal history that doesn’t make it seem like they will have much recourse.

      NYT gift article

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, well good for them then. I wonder if they had engaged in underground barefist boxing cage matches if they’d be under the same scrutiny.

        But I would’ve only drawn the line if they were portraying or using the university in any way. Maybe the pearl clutching could extend to if they were making porn while employed by the University, but still.

        Thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.

        • krellor@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, this is one of those situations I have mixed feelings on. On the one hand, in a perfect world what consenting adults do on their own time wouldn’t change perceptions of their competency or leadership.

          Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world and executive leaders do carry the expectation to keep their private lives private, and if something is public it shouldn’t be controversial.

          My two cents is that the guy was naive in thinking this wouldn’t undermines his executive role as leader of a campus. And naivety isn’t a great trait in a leader. But the president shouldn’t have made disparaging remarks about him and should simply have left it at a vague “differences in judgement.”

          • Madison_rogue@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ultimately, the only thing that may stand is the fact that the board of regents didn’t give him due process in handing down the decision. The announcement was made that the board was firing one of the Chancellors literally a couple hours before handing down the decision. There was no hearing by the board.

  • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    According to the article, the board did not publicly reveal why and it’s this guy himself who seems to be spilling the beans. Not sure what my take on the matter is other than it’s quite funny from afar.

  • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s a weird title since that’s explicitly what he was fired for. It’s not just what he says.

  • JR Freeman@stranger.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    @filoria

    It appears Unuversity policy requires faculty to disclose outside activities for which they receive renumeration.

    So it seems he wasn’t fired because he was producing porn, he was fired because he didn’t tell them he was being paid to produce porn.

  • Szymon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    This guy just got more money than his pension would have given him.

  • ThatFembyWho@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean if he uploaded it in 240p quality, or rotated sideways, he would totally deserve to be fired.

    Also the title had me thinking he was operating a studio or something. I, too, have been known to produce porn, and I wouldn’t want to work anywhere that had a problem with it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Former University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Chancellor Joe Gow said Thursday that the school’s governing board fired him because members were uncomfortable with him and his wife producing and appearing in pornographic videos.

    The Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents, which oversees UW-Madison, UW-La Crosse and 11 other regional campuses, voted unanimously during a hastily convened closed meeting Wednesday evening to fire Gow.

    After the vote, Universities of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman and regents President Karen Walsh issued statements saying the regents had learned of specific conduct by Gow that subjected the university to “significant reputational harm.” Rothman called Gow’s actions “abhorrent” and Walsh said she was “disgusted.” But neither of them offered any details of the allegations.

    Gow told The Associated Press in a phone interview Thursday morning that regents had discovered that he and his wife, former UW-La Crosse professor Carmen Wilson, had been producing and appearing in pornographic videos.

    But Rothman said Wednesday evening that he planned to file a complaint with UW-L’s interim chancellor, Betsy Morgan, seeking a review of Gow’s tenure.

    Rothman said in an email to the AP on Thursday morning that Gow failed to act as a role model for students, faculty and the community and mistakenly believes the First Amendment equates to a “free pass to say or do anything that he pleases.”


    The original article contains 570 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!