In what is being labeled as a watershed moment in American history, the #MeToo movement’s latest target is the often-controversial, anti-vaping supporter of Stanton Glantz. Accused of making both sexual and racism remarks to a former colleague, a Ms. Eunice Neeley, the allegations stem from a series of encounters with the USFC professor between 2015 and 2017 regarding the publication of a research paper.
Neeley claims that the USFC professor would constantly stare at her body lasciviously and make sexually charged comments to herself and about other female staffers. She also alleges that Glantz would occasionally make racist remarks (Neeley is African-American). When she complained to the university’s Board of Regents about his behavior, the lawsuit claims that Glantz removed the woman’s name from the related research paper as a form of retribution.
Is the university legally liable?
According to the San Francisco Examiner, Neeley claims that the sexual harassment began at her initial interview for the position where Glatz spent “several seconds leering at her chest.” The behavior is alleged to have continued throughout the mentee’s two-year employment, only to escalate in December 2016 when Neeley found herself in a dimly lit room with the USCF professor.
The lawsuit also alleges that the university failed to “take meaningful action” to protect its female staffers from Glantz’ continued sexual advances and disturbing behaviors. Neeley is also claiming that there are numerous credible witnesses to back up her claims, although none were referenced in the San Francisco Examiner article.
Glantz notorious on campus of controversial ‘rape’ statement
Neeley is also suggesting that Stanton Glantz has a well-known reputation on-campus as a sort of sexual deviant. She purports that Glantz regularly used his power and influence as a tenured professor to intimidate his victims into silence. And according to the accuser, Glantz is also notorious for repeatedly making the statement to multiple students and staffers that “You can rape the chancellor’s daughter and still have a job.”
The fact that this legal situation stems from allegations suggesting that the anti-vaping activist was trying to take credit for a mentee’s work comes as no big surprise for many in the vaping community. Pro-vaping advocacy groups and health sciences experts like Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University have a long history of blasting the 71-year old Glantz for intentionally writing and promoting junk science involving poor research practices that intentionally manipulate findings against the ideology that vaping is an effective tool for tobacco harm reduction.