Former Chancellor Joe Gow was dismissed from his position at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and had his tenure as a communications professor revoked after the University of Wisconsin System uncovered his involvement in making pornographic videos with his wife, Carmen Willson.
Now, nearly four months after the UW System Board of Regents unanimously voted to revoke his tenure, Gow has filed a federal lawsuit against the UW System alleging his dismissal was unconstitutional and violated both his free speech rights and the systems’s own stated commitment to academic freedom.
“The First Amendment protects Dr. Gow’s speech, even if it may be unpopular or contrary to the majority of public sentiment,” the lawsuit stated. “Indeed, the First Amendment is most important when the danger of stifling controversial speech is at its highest.”
The lawsuit was filed on Jan 27, both the first day of the spring semester at UWL and the day Gow would’ve returned to the classroom if his tenure had not been revoked.
The lawsuit requests three main things from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin- Declare that Dr. Gow’s termination was unconstitutional, order his reinstatement as a tenured professor at UWL and award him financial compensation for lost income due to his firing.
The UW System’s commitment to academic freedom the lawsuit refers to is in writing under Regent Policy Document 4-21 titled, Commitment to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression, which grants the “right to speak and write as a member of the university community or as a private citizen without institutional discipline or restraint, on scholarly matters, or on matters of public concern.”
In September, attorney Mark Leitner, representing Gow, contended that his client’s involvement in the “Sexy Happy Couple” videos fell under First Amendment protections. Leitner argued Gow’s actions took place entirely outside his professional duties and had no direct connection to his role at UWL.
“Dr. Gow’s videos and books are speech protected by the First Amendment. In particular, as a public employee, Dr. Gow has a First Amendment right to speak as a private citizen on issues of public concern, such as healthy human sexuality and the best ways to promote strong monogamous marriages,” part of the lawsuit reads.
In the second request of the lawsuit, Gow seeks reinstatement to his teaching position in the communications department at UWL. During day one of Gow’s initial disciplinary hearing, Chair of the UWL Communications Department and Professor Linda Dickmeyer was called as UWL’s second witness.
Dickmeyer had expressed concern of what Gow may bring up in classes, given the captive audience of the students in front of him. “That is not the place for him to discuss what he does with his hobby,” she said.
In a press conference after his final hearing in front of the Board of Regents, Gow told the Racquet Press, “I would love to get back in the classroom and I think there are a lot of people that would like to take classes with me.”
Gow explained how he feels some students would understand the real-world media experience he has gained through this situation and how that could be informative in the communications studies department.
Administration had expressed concerned about maintaining a boundary between Gow’s personal endeavors and his academic responsibilities. Now Provost Betsy Morgan, who had adopted the role of interim chancellor in Gow’s absence, made a comment during the hearing that UWL does not want to be known as “Porn-U.”
The final request of the lawsuit is financial compensation. “The Court should also award Dr. Gow damages compensating Dr. Gow for the financial losses flowing from his unconstitutional firing,” the lawsuit states.
If the Court were to rule in his favor, Gow may be finically compensated his annual faculty salary of $91,915, along with more than $310,000 in unused sick leave. He may also seek damages for legal fees and emotional distress.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) supported Gow with initial appeals within the UW System. “Gow’s suit isn’t just seeking to vindicate his own rights,” FIRE posted to X. “It’s seeking to protect the rights of faculty everywhere to engage in protected expression that their administrations may dislike.”
Gow expressed optimism towards the lawsuit’s trajectory. In a statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he said the lawsuit could get people to “rethink pornography.”
