Another Chancellor bites the dust

[marshwiggle]

The issue of whether people watch porn is entirely different from the issue of whether people voluntarily appear in porn.

Lots of people watch professional sports, including extreme sports which are dangerous, who would never think of engaging in them. All kinds of advertisers show activities which they note in the ads should not be attempted by viewers.

Young people are notoriously short-sighted in their actions. Google "regret appearing in porn" (or probably "regret" <just about anything>) and you'll get lots of hits. "Girls Gone Wild" videos and things of that nature have been around for quite a while. Undoubtedly some of the people who appeared in such things later wished they hadn't. But when the "leaders" of their institutions do it, it reinforces the idea that they don't need to hesitate.

Gow may have spent a lot of time thinking about the long term consequences of appearing in porn, (although clearly not as much as he should have), but his example will encourage drunken partying 20-somethings to follow his example with much less forethought.

Getting a good night's sleep, not eating or drinking too much, showing up for work on time, etc. are all habits that grownups engage in, not because the alternatives are illegal, but because the alternatives have potential long-term negative consequences. Leaders of institutions that work with young people are expected to be people who model mature behaviour, rather than behaviour which seems to reflect the same immaturity that the young people are naturally prone to.

Parents (and donors) aren't looking for institutions whose leaders want to be "cool kids" themselves; they're looking for institutions that will help their kids become responsible and productive adults, which includes leaders who model that.

[Kron3007]

I agree this was poor judgement, but it is really weird that they can be fired for violating some people's sensitivities when they did nothing illegal or universally considered immoral.

Some people would find it reprehensible to consume alcohol, but that obviously isn't an issue.

Some people are offended by eating meat, but again it is not an issue.

Two consenting adults posting their escapades online doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.  There are no laws against it, and you only have to watch it is you choose to do so. 

Would an image of them on a nude beach cause the same issues?  Where is the line, and why?  It is problematic for the morality police to pick and choose...

It would be another issue if they made the videos on campus, or played them in front of students, but that's not what happened. 

[marshwiggle]

I agree this was poor judgement, but it is really weird that they can be fired for violating some people's sensitivities when they did nothing illegal or universally considered immoral.

This is the point; in a role that is almost exclusively about image, the institution doesn't want that image to show poor judgement.

If it was their comptroller, and the finances of the institution have been handled really well by this person, then it may not matter that much since that position is about handling money. But where the position is about standing in front of groups people representing the institution, no-one wants to be picturing them doing it naked.

[Kron3007]

I agree this was poor judgement, but it is really weird that they can be fired for violating some people's sensitivities when they did nothing illegal or universally considered immoral.

This is the point; in a role that is almost exclusively about image, the institution doesn't want that image to show poor judgement.

If it was their comptroller, and the finances of the institution have been handled really well by this person, then it may not matter that much since that position is about handling money. But where the position is about standing in front of groups people representing the institution, no-one wants to be picturing them doing it naked.

I get that, but it still seems problematic.  As I said, what if images of them on a nude beach appeared.  Some people would find this offensive, others wouldn't. 

What if he wore a freshly clubbed baby seal fur coat to work? Some people would be outraged, but others wouldn't.

I think not renewing his term would be fine, but to fire him for it seems too far to me.

Aren't you against cancel culture?

[marshwiggle]

I agree this was poor judgement, but it is really weird that they can be fired for violating some people's sensitivities when they did nothing illegal or universally considered immoral.

This is the point; in a role that is almost exclusively about image, the institution doesn't want that image to show poor judgement.

If it was their comptroller, and the finances of the institution have been handled really well by this person, then it may not matter that much since that position is about handling money. But where the position is about standing in front of groups people representing the institution, no-one wants to be picturing them doing it naked.

I get that, but it still seems problematic.  As I said, what if images of them on a nude beach appeared.  Some people would find this offensive, others wouldn't. 

What if he wore a freshly clubbed baby seal fur coat to work? Some people would be outraged, but others wouldn't.

I think not renewing his term would be fine, but to fire him for it seems too far to me.

Aren't you against cancel culture?

In general, yes. The problem here is that his effectiveness in his job is mostly destroyed by this. So it's more of a "with cause" firing, since he's potentially doing more harm than good to the institution by continuing at this point. Celebrities who represent brands get dropped quickly if they get accused of some wrongdoing; even though they're legally "innocent until proven guilty", the accusation makes them a liability, and in that role, they have absolutely no value at that point, so they can't fulfill the purpose that they were hired for.
(Again for lots of behind-the-scenes jobs at the institution, where this wouldn't compromise their ability to do what they're hired for, it would be a different story.)

[Wahoo Redux]

The issue of whether people watch porn is entirely different from the issue of whether people voluntarily appear in porn.

Who says? 

Lots of people watch professional sports, including extreme sports which are dangerous,

Stop and think if this is a really apt analogy, Marshmaster.  An MMA Chancellor would be really, really cool, BTW.

Young people are notoriously short-sighted in their actions.

<snip>

Getting a good night's sleep, not eating or drinking too much, showing up for work on time, etc. are all habits that grownups engage in, not because the alternatives are illegal, but because the alternatives have potential long-term negative consequences. Leaders of institutions that work with young people are expected to be people who model mature behaviour, rather than behaviour which seems to reflect the same immaturity that the young people are naturally prone to.

Oh for the love of Pete, it is time to stop with the 'my-God!-won't-someone-think-of-the-children' topos!!  These are age-of-majority college students, not green little impressionable duckies.  Do you really think the UW-La Crosse students are sitting in their dorms going, "Golly, the Chancellor does it, I guess that makes it okay, huh fellas!  Let's make some porn!"  Please.  These kids grew up with readily available pornography at their fingertips.  If anything, they are highly amused by the situation.

No Chancellor is going to "mold" students into "leaders" either.  That's sappy old-school thinking.  College is mostly a job credential, anyway, as we have agreed.  Who cares what kinks the Chancellor has; and no, I don't think this will truly damage the reputation of the college----which is just there to get people jobs.

And enough with the false dichotomies between college students and "adults." particularly when the adults are posting homemade porn in this scenario.

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot unless one gets their knickers in a twist about it.  Time to unclutch those pearls, folks, and live in the (un)real world.

[marshwiggle]

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot unless one gets their knickers in a twist about it.  Time to unclutch those pearls, folks, and live in the (un)real world.

The really important question is "What proportion of donations and/or tuition does the chancellor's salary represent?"
If 5% (or whatever) of donations drop off, or if the institution gets 5% fewer applications, because of the chancellor's actions, and that amounts to more than the chancellor's salary, then he's costing them more than he's worth.

[secundem_artem]

My concern has nothing to do with his responsibilities or his students or his institution.

For the love of Gawd, were I to ever stumble upon the image of an adminis-critter at Artem U doing the deed, there would never be enough eye bleach, Prozac, or therapy to cure me.  Please, all of you go picture your provost in the buff and tell me that this guy's judgement is the biggest problem. EEEWWWWW!

[lightning]

Some universities have a "Conflict of Interest" aspect thrown into any contract, CBA, regents policy, faculty-admin-staff handbook, etc. Some "Conflict of Interest" no-no's can be very broad and, with an aggressive & clever university lawyer, could be used to basically say any activity outside of job duties that goes against the interests of the university, is grounds for dismissal.

I don't know if "Conflict of Interest" came into play, in the dismissal of the Univ. of the WI chancellor, but "Conflict of Interest" can be a very powerful tool, if a university wants to easily dismiss an administrator, regardless of whether or not outsiders regard it as legal or not.

[Wahoo Redux]

My concern has nothing to do with his responsibilities or his students or his institution.

For the love of Gawd, were I to ever stumble upon the image of an adminis-critter at Artem U doing the deed, there would never be enough eye bleach, Prozac, or therapy to cure me.  Please, all of you go picture your provost in the buff and tell me that this guy's judgement is the biggest problem. EEEWWWWW!

I am now imagining our very button-down, pressed-seams president wearing BDSM leather and getting all nasty with his Nancy-Reagan-wannabe spouse in a shiny pink teddy to "boom-chicka-mou-mou" music...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Disgusting for sure but the funniest thing since Dumb and Dumber!  I can only pray for a scandal with ultimately such low stakes and such a high amusement value.  Something's gotta get our foundering university some headlines!!!

[marshwiggle]

Turns out, he's landed on his feet .
University chancellor fired for making porn with wife offered X-rated work
 

"People in the industry have reached out to us to invite us to work with them, so that's really refreshing," Wilson said.

The couple, who have also co-written several books under pseudonyms about working in the porn industry, are considering future X-rated opportunities.

If you can't fix it, feature it.

[ciao_yall]

Turns out, he's landed on his feet .

If you can't fix it, feature it.

Or his third leg?

[marshwiggle]

Turns out, he's landed on his feet .

If you can't fix it, feature it.

Or his third leg?

You have NO IDEA how much self control it took to type "feet" instead of numerous other options.