A University Chancellor was Reprimanded for Inviting a Porn Star to Speak at His Campus. Here’s Why That’s a Problem.
The UW System is hindering public discourse, unfairly punishing one of its chancellors, and slut-shaming a woman for her history in pornography.
In early November, sexual freedom advocate and adult film actress Nina Hartley (also a Registered Nurse) visited the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse to deliver a lecture titled “Fantasy versus Reality: Viewing Adult Media with a Critical Eye.” She was invited to do so by the chancellor of UW-La Crosse, Joe Gow, as part of UW-La Crosse’s celebration of Free Speech Week, the topic of which was sexuality (see here for more on Gow’s statement on his reasons for booking her).
I…selected Hartley because I hoped she would remind our students, faculty and staff that sexual behavior should only involve consenting adults utilizing safe-sex practices. — Joe Gow
In the talk, she discussed several topics — (obviously) pornography, but also the difference between fantasy in pornography and real sexual encounters, the importance of consent, and safe-sex practices. Gow noted that Hartley presented her lecture “using only a simple Powerpoint projection” that included no pornographic images — indeed, no images, videos, or graphics at all. Gow stated that “there’s no one like [Hartley] in terms of her background as a performer and educator, and her role as an activist,” and that she could “deliver a safe-sex message with a credibility few other speakers can claim.”
I wish I could say it was a surprise, then, to see an extreme backlash against her appearance at UW-Lacrosse and Gow’s endorsement of it, but the UW Board of Regents and His Majesty Ray Cross are a far cry from progressive — 16 of the 18 Regents were appointed by Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin who infamously gutted the UW-System by some $362 million between 2012 and 2017. Ray Cross also must report to Governor Walker as well as to the Board of Regents. Not to mention, Cross and his ilk recently restructured the UW-System by merging two-year campuses with four-year institutions in the interest of saving money and “avoiding campus closures.” He did so, though, without consulting faculty, and the process has resulted in many concerns about potential layoffs, loss of tenure, and a lack of shared governance.
It came as no suprise, then, to see an explosion of criticism about Hartley’s appearance at UW-La Crosse. In the days and weeks following her talk, a media frenzy ensued, and Chancellor Gow lost his pay raise and faced a harsh rebuke from President Cross. Headlines like “‘It’s OK to like porn’: Porn star Nina Hartley lectures UW-La Crosse students on sex, adult entertainment” and “Nina Hartley gets University of Wisconsin Boss in Trouble” flooded in, and Ray Cross sent Gow the following memo:
Cross wasn’t the only one with his panties in a bunch (ha, ha). Bob Atwell, a UW Regent, wrote a skewering editorial on Gow’s decision, but focused his discussion on Hartley herself and pornography, with comments such as “no amount of talking about condoms and consent will undo the damage [Hartley] has done to herself and others” and “I suspect she is fantasizing about negotiating with the reality of life as a porn star too old to be much in demand. Rebranding herself as a paid advocate for sexual health isn’t going to restore her surrendered dignity.”
Atwell, it seems, has more of a problem with Hartley than Gow’s decision to invite her there. Indeed, his discussion of Gow was limited to Gow’s apology, what porn was like when Atwell and Gow were younguns, and “Gow’s admiration of free expression.”
As stated above, such condemnations have led not only to unwanted “sensationalistic media attention” (Gow’s words), but also to the revocation of Gow’s anticipated $25,600 pay raise. He was one of only three UW chancellors who did not receive a pay raise this year (more on this later). Granted, he makes $224,400 a year, but whether he (or other chancellors, one of whom received a pay “bump” of $72,668) should have received a raise in the first place despite faculty layoffs, low enrollment, and elimination of majors at various campuses is a separate issue (other UW faculty only received a 2% raise).
The problem with all this? Well, there are many.
…It is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they, or others, find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.
Obviously, there is the concern about infringing on rights to free speech. There’ve been discussions already about this from writers at The Chronicle. Inside Higher Ed also reported on the matter. Perhaps the most interesting part of all of this, though, is that the Board of Regents themselves released a Commitment to Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression just last fall, which included assertions such as “it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they, or others, find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
The document also included this tasty nugget:
Although members of the university community at each institution are free to criticize and contest the views expressed on campus, they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others, including speakers who are invited to campus, to express views they reject or even loathe.
Further, the policy states that “each institution in the University of Wisconsin System has a solemn responsibility not only to promote lively and fearless exploration, deliberation, and debate of ideas, but also to protect those freedoms when others attempt to restrict them.”
The actions of Ray Cross and the Board of Regents, then, are a direct violation of their own commitment. Cross and the Board of Regents are themselves attempting to restrict Hartley’s freedom of expression and are reprimanding Gow for promoting the very concepts they claim to value. Atwell in particular seems to be in gross violation of this commitment, as he rejects Hartley’s views, and, one could argue, “even loathes” what she does (from my view, it seems he loathes Hartley as a person; more on that below).
Hartley herself commented on how the UW System’s reactions run contrary to other policies like UW-La Crosse’s diversity and inclusion policy, which states that UW-Lacrosse adopted the pledge to be “an inclusive campus that attracts and retains diverse students, faculty and staff and promotes a dynamic learning environment vital for academic excellence and global citizenship.”
Hartley also wrote that the UW’s “intolerance of [her] as a knower of sex…is an exertion of control” that “harms students by stunting their critical engagement on an important topic for which a college education is supposed to prepare them.”
She’s right — the university is supposed to be a place of public discourse in which students are exposed to views other than their own, thus a place that encourages critical thinking. Indeed, the UW’s reactions go against UW-La Crosse’s mission statement, as well:
The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse (UW-L) provides a challenging, dynamic, and diverse learning environment in which the entire university community is fully engaged in supporting student success. Grounded in the liberal arts, UW-L fosters curiosity and life-long learning through collaboration, innovation, and the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge. Acknowledging and respecting the contributions of all, UW-L is a regional academic and cultural center that prepares students to take their place in a constantly changing world community (emphasis mine).
To say, then, that Cross’ and Atwell’s comments show a lack of “respect to the contributions” of Nina Hartley would be an understatement. Cross and Atwell have lambasted Chancellor Gow and Nina Hartley solely on the basis of their own personal moral repugnance for pornography (and Hartley herself).
Given all of this, the disciplinary action against Chancellor Gow is hardly justified or fair. While Cross claims that he is “deeply disappointed” at Gow’s “lack of responsible oversight with respect to state funds,” it’s clear that Cross’ reaction is fueled by his personal morals (he admitted to having “personal underlying moral concerns”). Taking punitive action based on personal moral objections is nothing less than an abuse of power, especially when you claim that the university should not “shield individuals from ideas and opinions they, or others, find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
It might be different if Gow had invited, say, a Neo-Nazi to campus who would be spreading hate speech, but he didn’t — Nina Hartley wasn’t supporting porn addiction, nor was she encouraging sexual violence. On the contrary, she was working to prevent sexual violence by encouraging consent, addressing sexual trauma and shame, and trying to change the way students think about sex to create sexual positivity — indeed, the opposite of violence.
This forces the question — would the UW System object to a former Neo-Nazi visiting campus who now condemned anti-Semitic and racist views? Perhaps, but their willful ignorance of Hartley’s message shows that they’re less interested in fostering public discourse and more interested in maintaining a certain image (in his letter, Cross also lamented the negative media attention after the event).
Which brings me to my next point re: the unjust discipline Gow’s experiencing. Cross also seems to be reacting so harshly because he feels personally insulted. In the letter above, he chastises Gow for failing to “brief [Cross’] office prior to [Gow’s] interview with the media.” Cross laments the fact that he found out about Hartley’s visit because of media coverage rather than Gow himself. In these comments, Cross sounds like a parent who’s angry about hearing about his child’s transgression from someone else other than the child. While Cross does have authority over Gow and — I’ll concede — it might have been a good idea for Gow to give Cross a heads-up about an impending media shitstorm, revoking $25,600 seems like a punishment that doesn’t fit the offense.
Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this situation, though, beyond the infringement on free speech and unnecessary temper tantrums from the UW, is the clear slut-shaming directed at Nina Hartley (and other porn stars, by proxy).
Beyond Cross’ (and the media’s) deliberate efforts to ignore Hartley’s other roles (RN, sexual advocate) and use of the term “porn star” rather than “adult film actress,” Regent Atwell is the leading pioneer of said slut-shaming. His editorial is chock-full of problematic, sexist, offensive, and crass comments. Among some of the most appalling are the following (also mentioned above):
No amount of talking about condoms and consent will undo the damage she has done to herself and others.
And:
I hope Dr. Gow comes to understand that there is much to pity and nothing to admire in th[e] phrase [‘fantasy is what we want; reality is what we negotiate’]. I suspect she is fantasizing about negotiating with the reality of life as porn star too old to be much in demand. Rebranding herself as a paid advocate for sexual health isn’t going to restore her surrendered dignity.
Atwell’s words in these passages should be infuriating to anyone who claims to support the interests of women (as every UW campus is supposed to do, according to their mission statements). It should be equally infuriating that he is writing these statements as a leader in the UW System, and one in a position of the highest authority a person can achieve in higher education. In these passages, he is in essence calling Nina Hartley a used up whore — she is “too old to be in much demand” and thus undesirable, she’s “surrendered her dignity” and she’s apparently done so much damage to herself that there’s no way she can possibly redeem herself. In short, Atwell seems to think, she’s fallen from grace.
Atwell doesn’t stop there; he also implies that in her role as a “porn star,” Hartley contributes to porn addiction and helps pave the way to the production of child pornography (slippery slope, anyone?). Atwell writes:
I wonder if she or Dr. Gow have ever talked with a woman whose husband is trapped in the addictive fantasies he longs to escape? Has she ever thought about their children?
And:
Do we really think that pervasive adult pornography plays no role in the proliferation of child pornography?
One could argue that the above criticisms are directed toward the porn industry itself, and I partially agree; however, the reason Atwell is bringing up these ideas in the first place is because he’s scoffing at Hartley’s participation in the industry, thus grouping her into those perpetuating the problems that he’s pointing out.
Beyond his suggestion that Hartley is ignorant (or that she just doesn’t care about) the perils of porn, there are many other issues with his proclamations. To dismiss Hartley’s experiences and viewpoints on the basis that men get addicted to porn and child pornography exists is extremely narrow-minded and ignorant. Atwell is effectively shifting blame away from the problems that actually cause these issues (objectification of women and pedophilia) to Nina Hartley and the adult film industry. He is doing so because he is fixated on one part of Hartley, and one part only: her status as a porn star. He is not seeing her as a human being, as a woman worthy of sharing her thoughts and experiences; he is doing exactly what he is criticizing. In effect, he is devaluing her, objectifying her; her worth can be determined only by her sexual value, and to him, she’s damaged goods.
I have been in the trenches of the gender wars for 35 years now and have seen first-hand how our rigidity regarding sexual matters harms everyone — Hartley
As if we need more to criticize about Atwell’s editorial, he also includes the “back in my day” laments that should by now be considered a logical fallacy in any argument (for a man of such authority in higher education, Atwell’s editorial provides no shortage of actual logical fallacies — ad hominem, ad hominem everywhere). He bemoans the rise of technology and internet pornography, writing that in his day, porn was “a crinkled magazine picture,” but now is “an unimaginable flood of graphic images two clicks away from every kid with a smartphone” (but why was your magazine crinkled, Regent Atwell? Overuse?).
While yes, the fact that porn is readily available and instantly accessible is concerning, again, Hartley wasn’t encouraging blind digestion of pornography. As we can see from her statements, her point was quite the opposite: to encourage students to be aware of the differences between pornography and real life. I think that, contrary to Atwell’s pretend-it-doesn’t-exist-and-it-will-go-away approach, Hartley’s lecture is actually a step forward in combatting addiction to pornography and curbing unwanted sexual activities. She is, in effect, providing a contrast to the persona she inhabits in porn — she is humanizing herself (and other porn stars) by calling attention to the fact that in real life, women are humans who are worthy of respect and who have desires.
Totalitarians and authoritarians alike fear sexual freedom because desire is anarchic and chaotic.
Finally, Atwell notes that he hopes “this will result in a deep conversation about pornography rather than a shallow one about freedom.” But the issue here isn’t whether pornography is productive/empowering or damaging/immoral, and a follow-up discussion on freedom shouldn’t be dismissed as “shallow.” Devaluing the importance of freedom in the system that Atwell is supposed to lead is an act of control; to use a tired metaphor thanks to the Trump era, it seems that Atwell should sit down with a copy of George Orwell’s 1984 (or maybe not; it could give him too many ideas).
The point here is that Atwell, like Cross, is focusing more on his personal morals than on the importance of public discourse. Atwell’s words are certainly proof of Hartley’s above argument that “totalitarians and authoritarians alike fear sexual freedom because desire is anarchic and chaotic,” (also from her editorial). Her lecture on sexual freedom certainly caused chaos (mostly for a bunch of white men) and her discussion of sexual freedom and desire apparently broke some rules.
To try to resolve the matter, Joe Gow reimbursed the $5000 it cost UW-La Crosse to bring Hartley in to speak (even though most speaker fees can be much higher) and issued an apology in which he called himself “naive” about the potential for media backlash and sensationalism (thankfully, he didn’t apologize for inviting her to the campus; instead he focused on the media’s reporting).
The UW System’s sexism and mistreatment of women isn’t limited to Hartley, though. One of the other chancellors who didn’t see a pay raise was Chancellor Beverly Kopper, whose husband (Associate of the Chancellor Pete Hill) was banned from UW-Whitewater’s campus by Ray Cross following sexual harassment allegations. To be clear, Beverly Kopper was never accused of sexual harassment herself and was not banned from campus.
Why, then, is she seemingly being punished by the UW System for the actions of her husband, of which she had no control? The answer is simple: because she is a woman. Just as Hillary Clinton was vilified for her husband’s affair and accusations of sexual harassment, Kopper is experiencing consequences of actions that aren’t hers. As a friend of mine said recently “women are punished for being sexually harassed, and women are punished for the men who sexually harass.”
The UW System, then, is doing a poor job supporting women — not only guest lecturers, but also its own employees.
Gow, then, seems to be one of the only men in a leadership role in the UW System who is doing something productive for women — first in inviting Hartley to speak (even though he knew it might generate controversy) and then in defending her appearance. It is comforting to me, as both a UW system employee and a woman who has been victimized by men addicted to violent porn, that a (white) man of such authority would risk his position to foster a discussion that would empower women and help men understand the necessity of consent. In my view, the UW System should be thanking him for his openness to hearing women’s voices.
Going forward, then, I can only hope that Ray Cross and the UW Regents realize the problems with their responses to Gow and can, at least in the future, follow Gow’s example in treating women with respect and dignity.
