When a university leader is charged with secretly filming “upskirt” videos on campus, the story is not only about one man’s alleged misconduct; it is a test of how institutions enforce dignity and privacy in spaces built on trust, and how modern law treats image-based sexual abuse as a distinct, prosecutable harm.
The Short Version
- New Jersey authorities arrested and charged Rutgers research dean Joshua (Josh) Kohut with fourth-degree invasion of privacy tied to alleged “upskirt” recordings on campus.
- Rutgers placed Kohut on administrative leave and barred him from campus while it conducts its process.
- New Jersey criminal law expressly covers covert recording of intimate areas concealed by clothing; courts have interpreted “exposed” to include views captured under clothing without consent.
- “Upskirting” has emerged globally as image-based sexual misconduct that legal systems have moved to address through voyeurism and privacy statutes.
What prosecutors allege and how the case is being handled
New Jersey’s Attorney General announced the arrest of Joshua Kohut, 51, dean of research at Rutgers University’s School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, on a fourth-degree invasion of privacy charge. According to the state, the alleged conduct involved covert “upskirt” recordings made on campus with a mobile phone, captured without the victim’s knowledge or consent. Fourth-degree invasion of privacy in New Jersey covers the non-consensual recording of another’s intimate parts under defined circumstances and is prosecuted by the Division of Criminal Justice.
Following the arrest, Rutgers stated that Kohut was placed on administrative leave and banned from campus pending the university’s procedures. As dean of research, his role included oversight responsibilities tied to research integrity and compliance—precisely the type of portfolio that obliges a university to act quickly to contain risk and preserve community trust when allegations of this nature surface. A criminal charge is an allegation, not a conviction, but the combination of a campus setting, a leadership post, and a privacy offense triggers institutional duties to protect students and staff while the case runs its course.
Why “upskirting” fits squarely within New Jersey’s invasion‑of‑privacy law
New Jersey’s statutory scheme has long encompassed surreptitious imaging of intimate areas. The state’s invasion-of-privacy provision makes it a crime to photograph, film, or record another person’s intimate parts without consent under specified conditions. The Appellate Division has interpreted this language to include images captured beneath clothing: the term “exposed” in the statute refers to the image created by the recording device, not to the victim’s body being physically uncovered to the human eye. In short, the law reaches the very scenario that “upskirting” describes.
Practitioners in New Jersey have summarized the precedents in plain terms: for the invasion-of-privacy charge to apply, the intimate parts need not be visible in the ordinary sense; what matters is that the recording penetrates the barrier of clothing to reproduce an intimate view without license or privilege. That reading closes a loophole that earlier cases in other jurisdictions had exposed, where non-nudity in public spaces was wrongly treated as consent to covert imaging. New Jersey’s courts have rejected that view.
From voyeurism to image-based abuse: the evolving legal and cultural frame
“Upskirting” is part of a wider category often called image-based sexual misconduct—acts that weaponize cameras to seize control of another’s intimate image, with or without subsequent distribution. A 2023 systematic review situates upskirting as a relatively new but now well-recognized modality of gendered violence that legal systems have had to incorporate into existing privacy, voyeurism, and harassment frameworks. That shift matters: by grounding these offenses in privacy and dignity interests, the law acknowledges that the harm is the non-consensual capture itself, not only the spectacle of public dissemination.
Different jurisdictions have reached the same destination through varied paths—bespoke voyeurism statutes, amendments clarifying that “beneath clothing” counts as intimate, or civil remedies that complement criminal penalties. New Jersey’s combination of criminal invasion-of-privacy provisions and a civil cause of action for damages supplies both deterrence and redress, and it aligns with global trends treating covert imaging as an affront to autonomy rather than a mere breach of decorum.
Rutgers University dean caught filming ‘upskirt’ videos: ‘extremely disturbing charges.’
Joshua Kohut, 51, dean of research at the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, was charged with fourth-degree invasion of privacy. https://t.co/a29TMf3SZ3— Robert Taylor (@rtxlib2) August 26, 2026
University duty of care when the accused is leadership
Institutions of higher education carry dual obligations when alleged misconduct implicates privacy and safety: protect the community promptly and conduct a process that is fair and legally sound. Swift administrative leave and campus bans are standard containment steps when the accused holds authority over personnel, funding, or student research opportunities. They preserve potential evidence, reduce retaliation risk, and signal that community norms are non-negotiable while courts address criminal liability. The fact that a dean of research typically oversees compliance architectures—conflict of interest, data stewardship, laboratory conduct—makes decisive action especially important to maintain trust in those systems.
What to watch next: legal posture and institutional process
In New Jersey, a fourth-degree invasion-of-privacy charge may lead to indictment, plea negotiations, or trial, with penalties that can include probation or incarceration. Prosecutors will focus on proving non-consensual recording of intimate parts under the statute; the defense, if it contests, often turns on intent, scope of the images, or context. Separately, Rutgers’ process will consider violations of university policy—conduct unbecoming, sexual misconduct definitions that include non-consensual recording, and obligations tied to leadership roles. Those determinations run on their own timetables and standards of proof, and outcomes can include termination independent of a criminal verdict.
The broader signal: dignity, technology, and deterrence
This case underscores a settled proposition in modern privacy law: technology that creates an intimate view does not sanitize the invasion. The phone in a pocket can be as intrusive as a hand; the wrong lies in the non-consensual access to a private area, not only in what the naked eye could see in a public corridor. Clear statutes, appellate guidance that closes technical loopholes, and visible institutional responses together shape deterrence. They make it unambiguous that covert imaging of intimate areas—on a campus or anywhere else—will be treated as a serious breach of law and trust.
Sources:
nypost.com, onnj.com, extension.rutgers.edu, rutgers.edu, sebsnjaesnews.rutgers.edu, patch.com, research.rutgers.edu
