You’ve probably seen the headlines. A university chancellor, a long-tenured academic, suddenly ousted because of a "secret" life in adult films. It sounds like the plot of a bad prestige TV drama. But for Joe Gow, the former head of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, it’s a very weird, very litigious reality.
Honestly, the story isn't just about pornography. It’s about tenure, the First Amendment, and whether a public university can tell its employees what they can do in their bedrooms—or in front of a camera—on their own time.
🔗 Read more: Federal Deficit by President: What Most People Get Wrong
The Double Firing of Joe Gow
Most people think Joe Gow was just fired once. Not exactly. It was a two-step process that basically nuked his entire academic career.
First, in December 2023, the UW Board of Regents voted unanimously to strip him of his chancellorship. They were "alarmed and disgusted" after finding out he and his wife, Carmen Wilson, were producing adult videos under the moniker "Sexy Happy Couple." He didn't even get a hearing for that one. Since chancellors serve at the "pleasure of the board," they could just cut him loose.
But then things got messy.
Gow was still a tenured professor of communication studies. Under university rules, tenure is a shield. It’s supposed to protect faculty from being fired for unpopular ideas or controversial speech. For months, Gow sat on paid administrative leave while a faculty committee debated his fate.
Ultimately, in September 2024, the Board of Regents voted 17-0 to fire him from his faculty job too. They didn't just cite the "pornography" itself. They claimed he was insubordinate, used university resources to plan shoots, and neglected his duties. Gow, of course, says that’s all a bunch of nonsense.
👉 See also: ICE Barbie Homeland Security: The Viral Controversy and Federal Branding Explained
The "Sexy Happy Couple" and the First Amendment
Gow’s argument is pretty simple: what he does as a private citizen shouldn't matter. He claims he never used the university's name or its money. He says he and Carmen were just a couple of vegans who liked to cook and, well, do other things on camera.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) actually backed him up on the free speech front. They argued that if a professor can be fired for legal, off-the-clock expression, then tenure doesn't really exist.
- The University's Stance: His actions caused "significant reputational harm" and he used work time to manage his side hustle.
- Gow's Stance: It's an attack on the First Amendment and academic freedom.
Where the Lawsuit Stands in 2026
So, where are we now? If you’re looking for a resolution, you’re going to have to wait.
Joe Gow filed a federal lawsuit against the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents, seeking reinstatement and over $400,000 in damages. He wants his back pay and he wants his $310,000 in unused sick leave. That's a lot of money.
A federal trial date has been officially set for June 22, 2026.
Until then, he’s basically in legal limbo. The university system has already spent upwards of $130,000 on legal fees just trying to keep him away from campus. It's a high-stakes game of chicken. If Gow wins, it could redefine what "conduct unbecoming" actually means for professors across the country.
Why This Actually Matters
This isn't just local Wisconsin gossip. It touches on a massive tension in 2026: the collapse of the wall between our public and private lives.
We live in a world where everyone has a digital footprint. If a chancellor can be fired for a side gig on OnlyFans, can a middle school teacher be fired for a spicy Instagram? Can a nurse be fired for a political podcast?
The university argues that as the "face" of the institution, Gow had a higher duty. They say he "exploited" his role to drive traffic to his videos. Gow points out that it was the university that made the videos famous by firing him so publicly. Before the scandal, almost no one at UW-La Crosse even knew the videos existed.
What Really Happened with the IT Resources?
One of the big "gotchas" the university tried to use was the allegation that Gow used his work email and computer for his adult business.
They found emails from sex toy vendors in his inbox. They alleged he declined a work call about a visiting politician because he was busy with a video shoot in Los Angeles.
Gow’s response? He says he never neglected his duties. He points to his record: record-breaking fundraising, high enrollment, and new campus facilities. To him, the "IT misuse" is a thin excuse to mask what is really just moral disapproval.
Practical Realities for Academics and Professionals
If you’re watching this case, here are the real-world takeaways you need to know:
💡 You might also like: Daily Lynn Item Obits: Why Local Legacies Still Matter in the Digital Age
- Contractual "Morality Clauses" Are Back: Many public institutions are tightening their contracts. They want to define "reputational harm" more broadly so they don't get stuck in a three-year legal battle like this one.
- Tenure is Not a Bulletproof Vest: The Gow case shows that if a university is motivated enough, they can find "cause" to bypass tenure protections.
- The "Public Face" Doctrine: If you hold a leadership position, the law often treats your "private" speech differently than it does for a low-level employee.
The June 2026 trial will likely be the final word on whether Joe Gow returns to the classroom or fades into the world of adult content and vegan cooking for good.
Actionable Insights:
Keep an eye on the Gow v. Board of Regents trial updates this summer. If the court sides with Gow, expect a massive push from faculty unions to strengthen tenure language across the U.S. If the university wins, it signals a shift toward employers having much more control over the "personal brands" of their employees. Regardless of how you feel about the content he made, the legal precedent will affect anyone who works for a public institution.