In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Gow and Ms. Wilson said that they believe they were fired over the videos, which included sex scenes together and with others under the username Sexy Happy Couple. Both said they felt it was wrong for the university to punish them over the videos, arguing that doing so infringes on their free speech rights.

Mr. Gow, 63, said he and his wife, 56, have made videos together for years but had decided recently to make them publicly available on porn websites and had been pleased by the response. They said they never mentioned the university or their jobs in the videos, several of which have racked up hundreds of thousands of views. The couple also has made a series of videos in which they cook meals with porn actors and then have sex.

The article also includes some basic legal history that doesn't make it seem like they will have much recourse.

NYT gift article

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah, well good for them then. I wonder if they had engaged in underground barefist boxing cage matches if they'd be under the same scrutiny.

But I would've only drawn the line if they were portraying or using the university in any way. Maybe the pearl clutching could extend to if they were making porn while employed by the University, but still.

Thanks for the clarification, nonetheless.

[–] krellor@kbin.social 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is one of those situations I have mixed feelings on. On the one hand, in a perfect world what consenting adults do on their own time wouldn't change perceptions of their competency or leadership.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and executive leaders do carry the expectation to keep their private lives private, and if something is public it shouldn't be controversial.

My two cents is that the guy was naive in thinking this wouldn't undermines his executive role as leader of a campus. And naivety isn't a great trait in a leader. But the president shouldn't have made disparaging remarks about him and should simply have left it at a vague "differences in judgement."

[–] Madison_rogue@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

Ultimately, the only thing that may stand is the fact that the board of regents didn't give him due process in handing down the decision. The announcement was made that the board was firing one of the Chancellors literally a couple hours before handing down the decision. There was no hearing by the board.