Another Chancellor bites the dust

[Langue_doc]

University Chancellor Fired After Making Pornographic Videos With His Wife
The University of Wisconsin System's top official said she was "disgusted" by the chancellor's actions; the chancellor says he was exercising his right to free speech.

Free speech, my foot!

[Ruralguy]

They can do whatever they please (that doesn't hurt anybody else) in their sex life. But when they put the videos on a website where many can see it, then perhaps it can do reputational damage to the school (though the only people who find out must have been watching the videos, or found out from someone who did, so there's a bit of hypocrisy here somewhere). Nonetheless, its one of those things where if it gets out to the general public, then yes, it can do reputational harm.

So, kudos to them on their marriage I guess, but they messed up professionally.

Someone who doesn't care will hire him for something else eventually.

[Parasaurolophus]

Seems like a predictable outcome, especially when you don't try to hide your identity.

Unjustified, but predictable.

[bio-nonymous]

They can do whatever they please (that doesn't hurt anybody else) in their sex life. But when they put the videos on a website where many can see it, then perhaps it can do reputational damage to the school (though the only people who find out must have been watching the videos, or found out from someone who did, so there's a bit of hypocrisy here somewhere). Nonetheless, its one of those things where if it gets out to the general public, then yes, it can do reputational harm.

So, kudos to them on their marriage I guess, but they messed up professionally.

Someone who doesn't care will hire him for something else eventually.

I couldn't get the article because I do not subscribe to the NYT, but depending on the contract, one could be fired quite justifiably for an ethics violation. The first amendment gives us the right to free speech, but doesn't necessarily protect us from the public consequences of exercising that right.

[Langue_doc]

Here's the link to the gift version:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/us/wisconsin-la-crosse-joe-gow-porn.html?mwgrp=c-dbar&unlocked_article_code=1.Jk0.m4_Z.lZO6Dw28LqYn&smid=url-share

[Sun_Worshiper]

They can do whatever they please (that doesn't hurt anybody else) in their sex life. But when they put the videos on a website where many can see it, then perhaps it can do reputational damage to the school (though the only people who find out must have been watching the videos, or found out from someone who did, so there's a bit of hypocrisy here somewhere). Nonetheless, its one of those things where if it gets out to the general public, then yes, it can do reputational harm.

So, kudos to them on their marriage I guess, but they messed up professionally.

Someone who doesn't care will hire him for something else eventually.

Poor judgement, to be sure, but kudos to them indeed!

[kaysixteen]

The board probably won't be able to fire him from his tenured prof position, but he does not have tenure as chancellor.  There certainly is more than a little to say for the notion that requiring a chancellor/president to be a moral example for impressionable adolescents is a perfectly legit criteria for being in said position, and, that making home porn movies for internet distribution, ahem, is not, er, being a good moral example.

[Hegemony]

But when they put the videos on a website where many can see it, then perhaps it can do reputational damage to the school (though the only people who find out must have been watching the videos, or found out from someone who did, so there's a bit of hypocrisy here somewhere).

Well, all of us have now found out, and I wouldn't say that discussing it on the boards counts as behaving hypocritically. I'm surprised that so many folks think it's no big deal. It's an outrageous lack of judgment, at the least.

[Ruralguy]

When I was speaking of "hypocritical" I was really just referring to whomever watched the video, recognized him and his wife, and then in some sort of mock outrage reported it. Though I guess it needn't have happened that way. There can simply be some amateur sleuths who look at all of these sites for signs of famous people, politicians, college presidents and their neighbors and the like. They aren't necessarily outraged, but for some reason like to out these individuals. Or maybe someone who liked it started blabbing and blabbed to the wrong person who didn't like it.

Its only a big deal to the extent that we know someone is going to make it a big deal. If nobody cares, and really they probably shouldn't, then why should it be a big deal "just because?"  But considering he knew what our society is like, he probably should have known better.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Look I get it, he showed lack of judgement and risks bringing the wrong kind of attention to the school - he had to go. But if a man and his wife want to make and sex videos and post them online, then I say good for them. This is still America after all!

[marshwiggle]

When I was speaking of "hypocritical" I was really just referring to whomever watched the video, recognized him and his wife, and then in some sort of mock outrage reported it. Though I guess it needn't have happened that way. There can simply be some amateur sleuths who look at all of these sites for signs of famous people, politicians, college presidents and their neighbors and the like. They aren't necessarily outraged, but for some reason like to out these individuals. Or maybe someone who liked it started blabbing and blabbed to the wrong person who didn't like it.

This could quite easily be a "6 degrees of freedom" thing; with thousands of students, staff, faculty, and others associated with the institution, the odds of at least one seeing it is high. Then that one person forwards it to someone else also associated with the institution, with a "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS?!" message, and exponential growth takes over pretty soon. (Probably many forwards will go to more than one person.)

Its only a big deal to the extent that we know someone is going to make it a big deal. If nobody cares, and really they probably shouldn't, then why should it be a big deal "just because?" 

Um, nobody wants to watch the graduation ceremony with the image of the naked chancellor in their head. (And even if you haven't seen it, your imagination will fill in the details.)

There are lots of stories in the news about public school teachers found with Only Fans accounts getting fired. Again, once students are aware of it, the distraction that it causes will make it impossible to be effective at their jobs.
 

[Ruralguy]

I can see why that might be the case, but lets say that the administration did nothing. Lets say the teacher, if it ever came up in class or it seemed that students were distracted just says "lets get back to the class material please.."
In that case, I can see it just going away.  That is, the more people sort of care just because someone else might care even more, then the chances are that it would get out of hand, but if everyone just didn't care, then it would be the same as any other distraction.

I'm just speaking theoretically. I know we don't live in that world, so I know why said admins and teachers sort of have to go, but in perfect world, I'd hope we all just wouldn't get so uptight and distracted by such things.

[dismalist]

This is just a case of exhibitionism. Even the DSM-5 has an entry for it.

On a local level, standards for indecent exposure vary. Difficulty is the internet, which is global. Who owns it, the viewer or the viewee? I suppose local standards are being enforced against a global venue.

As usual, decentralization would solve the problem. Some colleges could allow their faculty [and students] to be exhibitionists on the internet, and some could sanction it. Then students could choose what kind of college they wish to attend.

[marshwiggle]

I can see why that might be the case, but lets say that the administration did nothing. Lets say the teacher, if it ever came up in class or it seemed that students were distracted just says "lets get back to the class material please.."
In that case, I can see it just going away.  That is, the more people sort of care just because someone else might care even more, then the chances are that it would get out of hand, but if everyone just didn't care, then it would be the same as any other distraction.

I'm just speaking theoretically. I know we don't live in that world, so I know why said admins and teachers sort of have to go, but in perfect world, I'd hope we all just wouldn't get so uptight and distracted by such things.

The J Geils Band covered this decades ago.

You can't unring a bell.

[Wahoo Redux]

Look I get it, he showed lack of judgement and risks bringing the wrong kind of attention to the school - he had to go. But if a man and his wife want to make and sex videos and post them online, then I say good for them. This is still America after all!

This is the thing.  As Hegemony said, this is an outrageous lapse in judgment, but so what?  It's one thing if they get all freaky in the presidential suite or the library or whatever, but their escapades were entirely a private-cum-public endeavor.  Personally, this behavior sounds a lot more like psychological dysfunction than a moral failing (they are married, after all)----but again, so what?  Public moral outrage be damned.  We live in dangerous times when our employers censure us for our behavior outside the office.

Incidentally, this is not the first Ivory Tower porn scandal to rear its ugly streaming service.