Hat tip Walt: It must be Christmas or something.
A former UC San Francisco doctoral researcher Wednesday filed a lawsuit alleging sexual harassment by a prominent tobacco control activist and tenured UCSF professor Stanton Glantz that spanned nearly two years.
The lawsuit also alleges that Glantz retaliated against his former mentee, Eunice Neeley, after she complained about him to the university’s administration by removing Neeley’s name from a research paper.
Neeley accused Glantz of consistent inappropriate behavior that included staring at her body, making comments directed at Neeley referencing sex, making sexual remarks about other women to Neeley while at the workplace, and making racist remarks about Neeley, who is black.
The UCSF Board of Regents is named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court for allegedly failing to take action against Glantz after Neeley notified the university about the harassment.
A spokesperson for the university declined to comment about the allegations, citing UCSF policy that prohibits comment on “pending litigation or active investigations,” but said that an internal investigation is pending.
In March, Neeley requested a new mentor, but claims that the harassment continued. After UCSF notified Glantz of its investigation against him, Neeley alleges that her former advisor insisted on being named as an author of her work, and ultimately removed her name from a research paper that he took credit for.
Neeley claims that the university’s failure to protect her and other women from the ongoing harassment “forced out of her job” in June.
According to Neeley’s lawyer, Kelly Armstrong, Glantz is a current employee of UCSF. He rose to prominence for his research on the effects of secondhand smoke on the heart, and has authored numerous publications on secondhand smoke and tobacco control.
Neeley purports that Glantz used his tenure to intimidate his students from reporting his sexual harassment and emotional abuse. According to the lawsuit, Glantz was known to have told multiple students that as a tenured professor, “You can rape the vice chancellor’s daughter and still have a job.”
According to the lawsuit, Neeley was subjected to unwanted sexual advances during her first contact with Glantz, who interviewed her for a position with UCSF’s Center for Tobacco Research and Education in September 2015.
During the initial job interview, Neeley noticed that Glantz allegedly smiled while spending “several seconds leering at her chest” — a behavior that continued throughout Neely’s two-year employment at UCSF, according to the lawsuit…
Somehow, I’m not surprised. Tobacco Control is all about control, and it sounds like Stanton Glantz is as controlling and bullying and manipulative in his personal life as he is in his professional life.
And does UCSF’s vice chancellor have a daughter? And has she been raped? And has the perpetrator not yet been apprehended? If so, Glantz has to be a prime suspect.
It’s only been two months since Harvey Weinstein became the first high profile casualty of the current wave of sexual allegations. It sounds like that wave has become something of a tsunami, if it’s started to sweep through the professorial ranks in universities.
It also seems to suggest that there are large areas of public life where there are a lot of people who regard themselves as above the law. What’s surprising is the speed with which they are now falling from grace. Harvey Weinstein seems to have been dead and buried within days.
And there seems to be multiple knock-on effects developing as these people take a fall. The dismissal of NBC’s Matt Lauer seems to have sent shock waves through the organisation, and had staffers turning on new arrival Megyn Kelly when she attempted to profit from it.
I suppose another thing that’s interesting about this story is the amount of print that the SF Examiner devoted to it. They could have just had a one line story. Instead they’ve filled a page. Sounds like somebody wants this story to run. He couldn’t have enemies, could he?
It’s good that there are some other women who’ve apparently been subjected to similar unwanted attention from the fat slob. Maybe that’ll help the charges to stick.
Neeley claims that other female employees were also targeted by Glantz, and complained to Neeley that “the leering made them uncomfortable.”
The lawsuit alleges that the university was made aware of Glantz’s misconduct but failed to “take meaningful action to protect Neeley and other females from further sexual harassment.”
Armstrong said that Neeley wasn’t the only victim of Glantz’s misconduct.
“We believe there are multiple witnesses and victims to the sexual harassment by Glantz,” she said.
Armstrong said that Neeley suffered “significant emotional distress” due to her former advisor’s “egregious conduct.”
While declining to specify the damages that Neeley is seeking, Armstrong said the number is “significant.”
No worries. They can just stick another $2 on the price of tobacco in California.
P.S. The story has made it to Buzzfeed. Included is a link to the lawsuit. It’s a rampant problem in the University of California:
Frank Davis 
Excellent ! Ha ha ha !
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry. . no, wait, yrs I do.
He’s fat, very rich, quite privileged. He’s also meddling in politics. The recent tobacco tax hike gives him access to a gigantic slush fund.
She’s black, very attractive and I’d guess somewhat naive.
https://www.google.com.cy/search?q=eunice+neeley&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6urq18PfXAhWEtxQKHaCXDzcQ_AUIESgB&biw=600&bih=1024#imgrc=OZIQ0jE79hrvYM:
She has however got the smarts to get a firm of ruthless lawyers.
And yes he has a lot more enemies than friends. And his friends are the type who are bought, so only there for him providing th money keeps on rolling in.
And that’s how he got “tenure”.
Lose that and he’s buck naked.
But shit sticks and it smells. So who wants to be associated with an ageing kiddy fiddler, someone 40 plus years his junior?
Only those who are cut of the same cloth.
https://www.google.com.cy/search?q=person+who+established+action+on+smoking+and+health&oq=person+who+established+action+on+smoking+and+health&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.44422j0j7&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=AZcMLbR7nAIkwM:
All I could find about John Banzhaf is that he keeps nude photos of Britney Spears on his website:
“Apparently Professor Banzhaf thinks that the best way for his 1L tort students to learn about defamation is to look at nude photoshopped pics of Britney Spears… He displayed a censored version in class, which is fine, but then when I was checking his online slides for my outline, I discovered that he had also posted 9 (nine) photos of Britney Spears in varying degrees of undress on his website.”
Seem John Banzhaf is aware of what’s going on academia – and he’s gone to the trouble of writing several papers on the subject.
That he advertises in the comment section of this article.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/07/21/more-criticism-top-ed-civil-rights-official
Personally I think he’s covering his arse. The reason I say this is because there were several articles from students of Banzhaf complaining of his dictatorial attitude toward students and severe criticism of his lectures.
These appear to have been removed from the web, or at least I can’t find them. Google does state that some things I searched for have been removed – and I assume that’s because the main subject, Banzhaf, insisted they go.
Oh and just in case you recall that chap who complained about internet vermin. Australian wallah called Mike Daube.
Well he’s been head hunted by, would you believe, the World Health Organisation!!!!
http://www.who.int/tobacco/industry/product_regulation/tobreg/daube/en/
And all the praise and adulation heaped upon him when at Curtin University has suddenly disappeared as well.
So the WHO may have nicked Andrew Black and they’ve definitely nicked Daube, meaning the WHO tobacco control strategy will be run by proteges of Simon Chapman.
…meaning the WHO tobacco control strategy will be run by proteges of Simon Chapman.
That doesn’t bode well, although I guess that given how extreme the WHO anti-tobacco stance is already, the addition of another two fanatics won’t make a lot of difference.
The WHO’s profile of Daube that you linked provides a bulleted list of his credentials, the very first of which is:
It is then followed by a list of actual professional positions he has held.
It’s very telling that the WHO considers the subjective “Expert” a more prestigious title than objective titles such as “Director,” “Professor” and “Director General.”
The WHO clearly isn’t concerned about real achievements; they only care about maintaining the illusion of omnipotence.
@ nisakiman & Joe
Been pondering this one and way off left field stuff it is too.
Methinks Black was seconded to the WHO to get him out the way following the furore about his pledging a walloping amount over 5 years to the WHO.
And I’m not sure if the secondment may become permanent.
Daube brings very little to the WHO. Yes he was a really big cheese in Western Australia, but his only real claim to fame was banning efags. In that state.
IMO the folk at Curtin are probably well pleased to see the back of him and behind this there’s bound to be Black.
Is it a case of grabbing a like minded soul to beef up the WHO strategy? Or is it just a case of giving Daube greater career experience – and a handsome lump sum at the end of his contract?
My view is the new head of the WHO is more focused on real health issues, especially 3rd world stuff. Aside from that idiotic Mugabe thing, he’s proving not too bad.
Maybe this Daube move is to help shift the strategy back to tobacco. Hence the emphasis on their writeup of him?
So eff the poor and sick and mainly not white. Let’s get back to the 1st world lifestyle stuff.
More fame and fortune in that chaps!
Really, is anyone surprised that a pompas, arrogant do-gooder considers himself to be better than the rest of us?
Ha ha ha! I’m trying really hard not to gloat about this, but not succeeding very well so far.
Why doesn’t this surprise me? Indeed, a true xmas present!
It’s for situations like this that we Brits had the forethought to purloin that most excellent German word ‘Schadenfreude’. Time to get in a stock of popcorn, methinks. I’ll be watching this one with interest. How nice it would be if this girl manages to bring the charlatan down.
Time to get in a stock of popcorn, methinks. I’ll be watching this one with interest. How nice it would be if this girl manages to bring the charlatan down.
I reserve a seat in the front row so I don’t miss any of the spectacle!!
Following smokingscot’s lead, this seems to be the complainant:
According to the lawsuit, Neeley was subjected to unwanted sexual advances during her first contact with Glantz, who interviewed her for a position with UCSF’s Center for Tobacco Research and Education in September 2015.
During the initial job interview, Neeley noticed that Glantz allegedly smiled while spending “several seconds leering at her chest” — a behavior that continued throughout Neely’s two-year employment at UCSF, according to the lawsuit…
Trying to maintain my usual balanced view on these accusations…. it’s very difficult though as my Schadenfreude grin is getting in the way. *snigger*
Shall we take bets on tobacco control lawyers getting a court case being dismissed?
I bet they don’t.
Even if she chose to work for Tobacco Control, nobody deserves to be leered at repeatedly.
My schadenfreude grin is being resisted though bubbling beneath the surface , innocent until proven guilty of course, a concept alien to the defendant.
I would imagine they’ll defend him up to the point that it becomes no longer tenable, then they’ll throw him to the wolves in order to save their own skins. TC are not exactly renowned for their compassion, and Glantz was, at the end of the day, just a useful idiot, and expendable as such..
Better check any livestock within 50 miles of that perv. Oh yeah, the pigs xan’t squeal on him.
Now, just a moment. Does she have any proof? I’ve been watching the evolving harassment madness and asking myself: Isn’t it too easy, just say he did it, and the guy is a goner? Any girl can destroy any man, not vice versa?
To me, that’s just one more sign that the world (or certain parts of it) is going to dogs. I see no difference between feminism, TC, green dictatorship, etc. – no need for any proof, just harass someone, and you win.
I mean, I wanted to see the Glanz bastard down. But I wanted him to crumble down because he is an evil lying bastard enjoying his absolute power over smokers. I did not want him to go down because a girl maybe had a grudge and used same method as he did against smokers. I wanted him to go down as a liar about SHS, not as anything else.
With all respect, I want a clean victory, and this one is not our victory at all. You can’t defeat Debs like that, or can you (maybe she chases boys?).
In a way, it’s like you wanted to shoot someone, but discover he’s been eaten by a shark. Not fair.
it’s like you wanted to shoot someone, but discover he’s been eaten by a shark.
So? The shark saved you the trouble.
Although I agree it’s all madness.
I agree this is not the way I wanted to see Glantz fall, and I also agree the current trend of sexual harassment allegations may very well go the way of Antismoking or Political Correctness and get co-opted by those who simply want to ruin other people’s lives.
However, in the case of Glantz, sexual harassment allegations could possibly open the door to questioning the legitimacy of his “research,” which, in turn, may lead to the unravelling of the Antismoking movement.
You must admit that until now, Glantz et al. have been untouchable, and it didn’t look like that was going to change anytime soon. This might just be the catalyst needed at this point in time to make more people question the validity of the Antismoking movement.
I believe Antismokers have gotten away with far too much for far too long. So I, for one, welcome this news with open arms.
My thoughts entirely.
Does she have any proof? I’ve been watching the evolving harassment madness and asking myself: Isn’t it too easy, just say he did it, and the guy is a goner? Any girl can destroy any man, not vice versa?
It has happened, albeit in much lesser numbers and smaller scale, vice versa.It isn’t a one-way road. As often mentioned, I find myself these days defending more men than women.
I mean, I wanted to see the Glanz bastard down. But I wanted him to crumble down because he is an evil lying bastard enjoying his absolute power over smokers.
Who doesn’t want to see this guy penniless and powerless?
With all respect, I want a clean victory, and this one is not our victory at all.
I beg to differ; the public display of a greedy, old man playing out his power displays one thing: THE SELF-DESTRUCT BUTTON of tobacco control. It shows the club is having problems controlling it’s arrogant, power-craving members who feel so safe that they can say: And Glantz believed he could get away with anything because he had tenure, Neeley alleges. She heard that he told students having tenure means “you can rape the Vice Chancellor’s daughter and still have a job,” according to the lawsuit.
Thus we just need to take a seat in the front row to watch the spectacle unfold until it is time to act and for starters demand retrospectively TRANSPARENCY.
In a way, it’s like you wanted to shoot someone, but discover he’s been eaten by a shark. Not fair.
Perhaps not fair, but definitely better than living with a murder on your conscience.
sorry, botched up..
This needs to be in italics with the link underneath: And Glantz believed he could get away with anything because he had tenure, Neeley alleges. She heard that he told students having tenure means “you can rape the Vice Chancellor’s daughter and still have a job,” according to the lawsuit.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/stanton-glantz-sexual-harassment-lawsuit?utm_term=.dk9lPDb0jx#.qebQ62ezq1
When you’ve been getting away with everything without contest for so long, you might think you can get away with anything.
The UCSF Board of Regents is named as a defendant in the lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court for allegedly failing to take action against Glantz after Neeley notified the university about the harassment.
Sounds like UCSF has some explaining as to no action addressing her allegation.
Who is uglier: Stanton Glantz or Harvey Weinstein ? Pervy control freaks.
Dick Puddlecote has picked up on the story. He has a link to Stanton Glans’ denial of any impropriety, which amounts to: “I deny everythin’ “..
It’s spreading over Facebook too. I counted about 5 references to the story today.
In his I-deny-everythin’ he adds:
“I have also heard that another woman who has been collaborating with Dr. Neeley will be filing a lawsuit in the near future. She also filed a complaint with the University which is being investigated by the same and other offices.”
So it looks like he’ll soon be facing two lawsuits. Maybe there are even more on the way.
To be brutally honest, his ‘transgressions’ are only deemed so in the current Politically Correct environment. Twenty years ago, it would have been considered fairly standard, and nobody would have raised an eyebrow. It’s not as if he raped the girl or forced her into some sort of non-consensual sex. Just stared at her boobs a lot and indulged in a bit of innuendo. Same as many (if not most) guys did back then. He probably doesn’t really understand what all the fuss is about.
That said, I truly hope he gets hung, drawn and quartered for it, regardless of the merits (or not) of the case. It would be poetic justice if he were punished for a non-crime, in the same way he’s been punishing smokers for the non-crime of enjoying smoking.
Indeed. Almost exactly my view too.
Sure, from what we are being told, he did not rape the girl. However, he was well aware of his position as the girls’ boss.
It’s not the same as some other person e.g. in a pub doing the same. In the latter case it would have been easy for the girl to make her discomfort known rither by walking away or slapping the guy.
When it comes to work the situation is different, especially if you need the job to make ends meet. There you have an employer/employee relationship.
Perhaps he thought that a succession of young students was one of the perks of the job.
O/T
Boy is this enjoyable, watching them fall.
Robert Mugabe
Ali Abdullah Saleh
And now Mikhail Saakashvili!
http://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-again-arrests-mikheil-saakashvili-ex-president-of-georgia/a-41720568
Pingback: Growth, Climax, Decay, Collapse | Frank Davis
Pingback: Fighting The Wrong Enemy | Frank Davis
Pingback: How I Started Smoking | Frank Davis
Pingback: The New Savonarolas | Frank Davis