[jwond]

> Karen Walsh, the president of the UW Board of Regents, said she was “alarmed” and “disgusted” by Gow’s actions, which were, she stated, “wholly and undeniably inconsistent with his role as chancellor.” But Gow’s actions were neither consistent nor inconsistent with being chancellor. Strictly, his actions were outside the scope of that role. Or they could be considered so, if most Americans simply chose to see the situation that way.

People's actions outside of work are still an indication of who they are as a person, and being an effective leader generally requires that your subordinates have some level of respect for you. As the article itself admits, the majority (58%) of Americans consider porn to be immoral. Most people aren't going to have much respect for someone who engages in behavior they view as immoral, particularly if the individual has a long history of such behavior (as is the case here).

The leader of an organization is also viewed by people as a representative of the organization's values. If people view the leader of an organization as immoral, it will deter them from engaging with that organization.

[broscillator]

How much of that 58% abstains from porn?

[kjkjadksj]

People don’t really care about the morality of the organization head if the org is able to stand on its own. There’s been no shortage of known scumbags helming popular companies even in recent times to seemingly little effect.