Don't Fire People for Making Pornography in Their Free Time
Firing a Wisconsin university chancellor for making consensual pornography with his wife has reignited debate over how far employers should reach into workers’ lawful private lives. Commenters weigh competing values: at‑will employment and institutional reputation versus civil liberties, privacy, and the risk of “cancel culture” punishing non-criminal behavior. Many draw a distinction between ordinary employees and public-facing leaders, arguing over whether off-hours conduct that some view as immoral should cost someone their job if it doesn’t directly affect work performance.
Off-duty conduct and employment
- Many argue that non-criminal, off-hours activities unrelated to work, done without invoking the employer, should rarely justify firing.
- Counterpoint: in reality, employers often react to external pressure, reputational risk, and replaceability; it’s “easier to fire than to defend.”
- Some suggest legal protections limiting firing for off-duty conduct, giving employers a firm “we can’t do that” excuse to resist public pressure.
Higher standards for leaders and public-facing roles
- Several commenters see a clear distinction between rank-and-file employees and a university chancellor or other institutional “face.”
- For such roles, credibility, perceived moral authority, and avoidance of front-page scandal are seen as core job requirements.
- Some argue that such expectations should be explicit in contracts via morality/ethics clauses; others worry every added constraint narrows the talent pool.
Pornography: morality, harm, and respect
- Views on porn diverge sharply:
- One camp sees consensual porn as a private matter that does not inherently harm others or job performance.
- Another views porn as immoral, commodifying sex, causing mental or social harms, and as a legitimate red flag for trust and character.
- There’s dispute over whether porn’s alleged harms are evidenced or exaggerated, and whether disapproval justifies employment consequences.
Reputation, community norms, and impact on others
- Some argue the chancellor’s actions undeniably hurt the university’s reputation, alumni job prospects, and student perceptions, especially in socially conservative regions.
- Others think reputational fears are overstated and note that firing itself amplified the story.
- Comparisons are drawn to past discrimination (e.g., against gay or interracial relationships) to show how “community standards” can encode bigotry.
Consistency and slippery-slope concerns
- Commenters ask how far the principle extends: off-hours racist speech, KKK rallies, controversial political stances, or open-carry gun habits.
- Some advocate a simple standard: off-duty behavior should matter only when it clearly impairs job performance or violates law.
- Others emphasize that trust, perceived values, and social fit—though subjective—are inseparable from many jobs, especially in education and public service.
Cultural attitudes toward sex
- Several note US sexual norms as unusually puritanical and hypocritical: sex is universal yet open sexuality is heavily stigmatized.
- Others distinguish private sex from publicizing or monetizing sex, which they see as crossing a line even if consensual.