Prosecutors say a Rutgers dean recorded secret “upskirt” videos on campus, and the case now tests how schools protect privacy when trust breaks.
Story Snapshot
- New Jersey prosecutors charged Rutgers dean Joshua Kohut with fourth-degree invasion of privacy.
- Investigators say “upskirt” videos were found on a device tied to Kohut.
- Rutgers placed Kohut on leave and banned him from campus during the probe.
- The charge carries up to 18 months in prison if convicted.
What Prosecutors Allege And What Rutgers Did
State authorities say Joshua Kohut, a dean of research at Rutgers, recorded “upskirt” videos with a mobile phone while at the university in New Brunswick. Prosecutors say investigators found the videos on one of his devices, which led to a fourth-degree invasion of privacy charge. Rutgers removed Kohut from active duty, put him on administrative leave, and barred him from campus pending the outcome. School leaders called the allegations “extremely disturbing,” and they moved fast to create distance from the case.
Charging documents and official statements describe a basic theory of the case: a covert recording taken without a person’s knowledge in a setting where that person could expect privacy. That claim, if proven, tracks common invasion of privacy statutes. New Jersey treats secret recordings of intimate areas as a crime even in semi-public spaces, when the target cannot reasonably protect themselves. Prosecutors often focus on the act, the angle, and the lack of consent. The details here will live or die on digital evidence and chain of custody.
Why This Conduct Is A Crime Even In Public Spaces
Court rulings in North America have drawn a firm line on hidden close-up recordings. The Supreme Court of Canada held that students in school common areas still have a reasonable expectation of privacy against sexualized filming. The court found a teacher guilty of voyeurism for secret camera clips of students, even though the videos were shot in hallways. Location did not cancel dignity or consent; the focus and intent did. United States state laws follow the same logic in their privacy and voyeurism rules.
Lawmakers wrote these statutes to catch bad acts that exploit camera tech. A person who aims a lens up clothing to capture intimate areas crosses from casual observation into targeted surveillance. That is why “upskirting” prosecutions center on purpose, vantage point, and absence of consent. The law speaks plainly here: privacy covers the body under clothes. Common sense agrees. No one gives up that privacy by walking across a campus or standing in a line.
How Universities Respond When Trust Is Broken
Universities move quickly when such charges hit a senior figure. Leaders protect students and staff first, stabilize operations, and limit liability. Rutgers took the standard steps: suspend duties, restrict access, and refer all questions to investigators. That process respects due process while guarding the community. It also signals values. A school holds a unique duty of care. When a leader’s conduct threatens that trust, even by allegation, decisive action is the only responsible path.
Rutgers University dean caught filming ‘upskirt’ videos: ‘extremely disturbing charges’ https://t.co/rVUCUmrIlg
— Dian (@Dian5) August 26, 2026
Policies usually require fast reporting to human resources and campus police, device preservation, and no-contact orders. These moves prevent evidence loss and reduce risk of further harm. They also support victims, who often hesitate to come forward. A consistent process matters more than rhetoric. It builds a record for courts and reassures parents. On this front, Rutgers appears to be following the playbook that most major schools now use after hard lessons over the past decade.
What Comes Next And Why It Matters
The criminal case will hinge on what the seized devices show and how cleanly investigators tie those files to the accused. Defense counsel may test consent, context, or device control. Prosecutors will try to show clear intent and a pattern of conduct. If the evidence is as described, a jury may see little gray area. The statute is direct, and jurors understand the harm. A conviction could bring up to 18 months in prison for the fourth-degree charge.
Schools should not wait for the verdict to improve safety. Clear “no secret recording” rules, staff training, and easy reporting lines reduce risk. Stronger mobile device and camera policies in sensitive spaces also help. Parents and donors expect that stewardship. American conservative values point to an old truth here: institutions exist to protect the vulnerable and punish abuse. When technology tempts people to cross moral lines, the answer is firm rules, swift enforcement, and equal justice under law.
Sources:
nypost.com, nytimes.com, supremoamicus.org
