The Stanford Daily: Stanford Medicine professor (José Montoya) fired for violating University rules of conduct (june 2019)

Esther12 said:
I just happened to see this from Cort about a number of accounts promoting conspiratorial views re Montoya all being from the same IP address:



Who knows what was going on there, but it does illustrate how easy it easy for someone to create a bad impression.
Click to expand...
Seems to come from British Columbia. Could be a VPN but it's allocated to Telus (an ISP and cell provider) and I doubt they operate one.
 
rvallee said:
Seems to come from British Columbia. Could be a VPN but it's allocated to Telus (an ISP and cell provider) and I doubt they operate one.
Click to expand...
https://browserleaks.com/ip

Yeah probably a real IP. Doesn't appear to be a VPN or Tor exit node. Not sure why Cort didn't simply delete the posts instead of adding fuel to the fire. It's his forum though.

Probably better discussed in the online privacy thread.

Sorry for the off topic.
 
Dolphin said:
For what it is worth:
Click to expand...
Are we interested in opinions of people who want to protect Montoya or are we interested in the facts of the case?
No one is unable to commit crimes because of their accomplishments. However if they want to donate money to ensure he has good legal representation then they should do so which would allow the evidence to be tested.
Also i notice how they try to paint the situation as reverse this otherwise Stanford's reputation is the one to suffer...
 
I always find this sort of thing interesting because I think it highlights how we as humans often have very one dimensional views of other people. Bad people are sometimes capable of good. Equally good people can make mistakes and do bad things. We often only ever get to see one side of someone.

The defence of “but he’s such a good guy!” has been used to silence those who report abuse for decades, and I think it plays into the idea that someone is either entirely good or entirely bad. Just because you personally like someone or enjoy working with them doesn’t mean they’re capable of doing terrible things. I hope the women involved get some sort of justice soon!
 
Dr Carrot said:
I always find this sort of thing interesting because I think it highlights how we as humans often have very one dimensional views of other people. Bad people are sometimes capable of good. Equally good people can make mistakes and do bad things. We often only ever get to see one side of someone.

The defence of “but he’s such a good guy!” has been used to silence those who report abuse for decades, and I think it plays into the idea that someone is either entirely good or entirely bad. Just because you personally like someone or enjoy working with them doesn’t mean they’re capable of doing terrible things. I hope the women involved get some sort of justice soon!
Click to expand...
Did you mean "incapable"?
 
Dolphin said:
For what it is worth:
Op-Ed: Letter of unqualified support for Dr. Jose G. Montoya
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2019/06/27/op-ed-letter-of-unqualified-support-for-dr-jose-g-montoya/
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this

I could just repeat my last post, but it seems many don't want to realize that people can commit crimes even though they act professionally in other areas.
Bernie Madoff was charming, yet he perpetrated the biggest ponzi scheme in history. Perhaps even because of his charm.
 
Last edited:
Alvin said:
Thanks for posting this

I could just repeat my last post, but it seems many don't want to realize that people can commit crimes even though they act professionally in other areas.
Bernie Madoff was charming, yet he perpetrated the biggest ponzi scheme in history. Perhaps even because of his charm.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. In my experience, abusers get away with it because they're superficially charming. That's why people find it hard to come forward. The victims worry no one will believe them because the abuser is so popular.
 
chrisb said:
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the levels of understanding or realisation of people on this forum.
Click to expand...
I thought Alvin's comment was more aimed at the defenders in the articles, and society in general. But I could be wrong.

As an analogy, it seems like people in the past tended to disbelieve their idols could do terrible things just because they liked their music/films/TV shows/politics. But I think that's certainly changing and people are becoming more sceptical even of their favourite celebrities.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
Absolutely. In my experience, abusers get away with it because they're superficially charming. That's why people find it hard to come forward. The victims worry no one will believe them because the abuser is so popular.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

adambeyoncelowe said:
I thought Alvin's comment was more aimed at the defenders in the articles, and society in general. But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
You are correct. This is a time honoured way to defend abusers, it was wrong then and society is just beginning to understand its wrong now.

As an analogy, it seems like people in the past tended to disbelieve their idols could do terrible things just because they liked their music/films/TV shows/politics. But I think that's certainly changing and people are becoming more sceptical even of their favourite celebrities.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Using celebrity as a shield is slowly coming to an end.
 
Cort's hatchet job on Montoya. My interpretation/understanding of it is that Cort seems to think that with Montoya out of the way, Ron and the OMF should get more funding. And also that it is Montoya's fault that Stanford hasn't achieved more in ME research.

Also this was more than surprising to read
That conflict between two researchers [Ron Davis and Jose Montoya] vying for funding was never better demonstrated than during the highly competitive battle to become one of the three NIH funded ME/CFS research centers. The split showed up in spades when both submitted applications to become an ME/CFS research center – a situation which didn’t help either of them.

Not only did it look weird, but each had resources the other could have used. Montoya had the on-site clinic Davis needed to provide patients, plus he had research Davis could have potentially piggybacked on. Davis, on the other hand, had research cred like few others, connections all over the place and a large lab.

I asked Davis why didn’t he and Montoya work together on the NIH research centers application. His answer did not redound to Jose Montoya’s benefit.

Davis reported that Montoya’s late withdrawal from Davis’s NIH research center application put his application in jeopardy

Montoya, he said, was on his application. Months before it was due, Montoya had agreed to provide the clinical core for Davis’s application and write up that part of the application. Not long before the final application was due, however, Montoya pulled out, told Davis he was submitting his own application (and invited Davis to be on his application).
Click to expand...
I'd be intrigued to determine how accurate this is, considering that Montoya was part of the Columbia CRC setup - would he really agreed to be part of that while also putting in a bid himself? Perhaps he would.

https://web.archive.org/web/2019072...ver-lining-montoya-chronic-fatigue-situation/
 
‘Destroyed my career’: Faculty report unchecked sexual harassment in School of Medicine | The Stanford Daily
Several female School of Medicine faculty blame a culture of sexual harassment and sexism for what they say is an inadequate University response to allegations ranging from inappropriate touching to inaccurate, career-undermining rumors.
Click to expand...
This is not the first time School of Medicine professors have been accused of sexual harassment or violence.

Former Medical Center professor Jose Montoya was fired in June 2019 following “multiple violations of the University’s conduct policies,” according to Stanford Medicine. According to former members of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) Initiative, which Montoya led before being fired, those violations were sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.
Click to expand...
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2020/...cked-sexual-harassment-in-school-of-medicine/
 
This did not look like a case between Stanford and Montoya. It involved proceedings by Mendiola (whoever she is) against Stanford and Montoya for employment discrimination. This could mean either that there has been an agreed settlement out of court or that the case has been dropped. One suspects the former.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom