Recently, the Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents voted to fire Joe Gow, the former UW–La Crosse chancellor, from his tenured faculty position. The reason? He and his wife appeared in a video on an adult website. This decision has sparked a lot of conversations about privacy, professionalism, and the boundaries between personal lives and public roles.
It’s clear that this situation is embarrassing for the university and likely for Gow himself. Yet, there’s a crucial point we must consider: this video was created by a married couple, shared on a site that people voluntarily visit. While it may be easy to judge Gow for this, it’s important to note that whoever discovered the video was on the same adult site. This brings up a fair question: If visiting adult sites is acceptable in private, why should creating content in a consensual, adult context be grounds for dismissal?
From my perspective, what people do in their personal time is their business. The line between personal freedom and professional responsibility is delicate, and in most cases, we should respect people’s right to privacy, especially when they are engaging in legal, consensual activities with their spouse.
However, I also understand that in certain roles, particularly in leadership or public-facing positions, the expectation is different. When you represent an institution like a university, you are often held to higher standards, and sometimes it feels as though you’re on the clock 24/7. Even in private moments, actions can carry public consequences. This is the reality many leaders face — the boundaries between personal and professional life blur, and what might be acceptable for some becomes controversial when it involves someone in a position of authority.
The question we should ask is this: Should our personal choices, especially those made in private, really dictate our professional fate? Or is this a case of overreach, where society’s discomfort with human sexuality has led to an exaggerated response?
This situation invites a broader conversation about the evolving expectations of leaders in public roles and how much of our personal lives should be scrutinized in relation to our jobs. While it may be easy to dismiss Gow’s actions as a violation of decorum, we also have to question how much control we truly have over our private lives once we step into public leadership.
What are your thoughts? Should there be clearer boundaries between what happens behind closed doors and how we perform in our jobs? Or is the Board of Regents right to dismiss Gow in an effort to protect the image of the university?
I look forward to hearing your perspectives on this complex issue.