I thought that was where the “right to a fair trial” comes in.

Judging people based on hearsay and media reports is not “justice”.

The fact that crime victims often feel uncomfortable making their claim is not a justification for presuming defendants guilty until proven innocent.

Gossips always think they’ve got “the truth” – it seems so self-evident; they can just “see” who is lying and who is telling the truth, and they can fill in blanks from their own experiences (just like Miss Marple, who always knew a lady just like the one she’s dealing with, and the comparison always ends up apt).

In small quantities and local situations, “sticking your nose into other peoples’ business” serves an important societal function (enforcing norms, stigmatizing misbehavior) but it is precisely because gossip is both unreliable and inherently vindictive in nature that we have developed the notion of due process when real stakes are involved.

It’s good to talk with you. You make a good point. Certainly the person making the charge should be instructed to keep the claim confidential. But, unfortunately, as you say, the person making the charge can go public.

I don’t see a way around this. Justice demands that we allow people to feel comfortable coming forward with claims, but justice also demands that a person’s reputation be protected from unwarranted charges.

Certainly, we all have an obligation to be as rational as we can be, and only believe charges that are based on sufficient evidence.

Thanks for your comments. I think that, any accusation must be based on sufficient evidence in order for it to be believed. I don’t believe that someone should be presumed to be telling the truth, unless he/she has sufficient evidence that his/her claims are true.

Unfortunately, there are irrational people out there who assume that, just because an accusation has been made, that it must be true, and they don’t concern themselves with getting aquainted with the facts. One way to prevent individuals reputations from being irrationally tarnished, is, if someone has made an accusation against someone, the authoritites who receive the accusation information, should keep this information confidentional, and if they conclude that there’s no credible evidence to support the charge or charges, keep the information indefinitely confidential. in this way, a person feels free to come forward with information that he/she has been mistreated, and also the person accused, is treated fairly.

Correction: I should have said, every gossip is presumed to be telling the truth until the person being gossiped about – that is, the victim – proves his innocence?

Yes, wrong – but is it criminal?

Some ask where do we draw the line. I believe that if one never discusses sexual matters, or religious matters, or even political matters, in the workplace, one doesn’t have to worry.

Some years ago, a member of my family was furious because the realtor – a black man – refused to come into the house. Her husband was not home. The insinuation was clear: he was all but saying that a black man can’t go into a white woman’s house without risk of unfair accusation.

Is that how we have to live? Does having women in the workforce necessarily mean the burden is on *me* to be whatever they decide I ought to be, instead of who and what I am? Will my career be gone in an instant on the say-so of some vindictive woman who isn’t even going to be cross-examined?

Is that what justice looks like to you? Every person who makes an accusation is presumed to be telling the truth until the accused proves his innocence?

To add a few thoughts, on this matter. I believe that we can prevent, or at least reduce the prevalence of sexual harassment, by not only recognizing that, in general, men and women view sexuality differently, and men must respect the views that women have on this, but also we must completely adhere to the principle of equality.

If men accept the principle that women and men are equal, in ability, and moral worth, this will advance tremendously out ability to eliminate the odious prevalence of sexual harassment.

And part of this principle of equality, is accepting that everyone has a right to only experience what she or he wishes to experience. And only by obtaining a person’s consent, to discuss sexual matters, can it ever be proper to discuss them.

And, this consent, can only be obtained if the person is a close friend, or a romantic partner. I don’t believe that it could be obtained in the workplace, or anywhere else, unless the person is a close friend, or romantic partner.

However, one must never assume that, just because a person is one’s romantic partner, or a close friend, that she or he would automatically be ok with discussing sexual matters; one should always ask one’s close friend, or romantic partner if they’re ok with discussing these things prior to discussing them, to ensure that they’re not going to be hurt, or offended, by talking about them.

In the workplace, or any other professional setting, it’s inappropriate to discuss sexual matters at all, in my view, even if one asks the person if it’s ok. Sexual matters are private, and should remain that way.

Blake, your point about consistency is a good one. Certainly ANY form of harassment is very wrong, whether it’s sexual, religious, political, etc.

EVERY person, female or male, has a right to work in a peaceful environment, free of any form of harassment.

Some ask where do we draw the line. I believe that if one never discusses sexual matters, or religious matters, or even political matters, in the workplace, one doesn’t have to worry.

If Anita Hill’s claims regarding Clarence Thomas were/are true, he created a lot of suffering for her, and he does not deserve to be on the supreme court. only he and she knows the truth here, but, I find it hard to believe, unless she’s a sociopath, that she made all of this up. I doubt she’s a sociopath. I find her account believable, but I’m offically agnostic concerning her claims.

I also find the claims of the women of harassment by Herman Cain believable, but I’m offically agnostic.

But, if either man sexually harassed women, he behaved profoundly immorally, and don’t deserve any defense from any Christian, or anyone else.

As I mentioned to david c., a settlement does not necessarily imply guilt. But, although people react in different ways, Mr. Cain’s response, to these allegations seems a little calm for someone being charged with something false. Maybe that’s just part of his personality, but I would expect more anger, with four people making false charges.

Certainly some people have taken sexual harrassment too far. Asking someone for a date is not a form of sexual harrassment. But discussing sexual matters in the workplace is, I believe.

Men and women are different. True, this is an obtusely obvious statement, but i think that it gets forgotten by some men, in the workplace and other areas. In general, men tend to not be as easily offended by sexual talk, and some men assume that women are also not offended, or as easily offended, and, an unfortunate consequence of this is, they may unintentionally offend women, by talking the same way that they do around their male friends.

This could be rectified, I believe, (unless a person doesn’t have a conscience, that is, is a sociopath, and therefore doesn’t care about others feelings) by educating men on the differences between men and women, in general, concerning sexual matters. Women, in general, are more wanting monogomy, and are less “open” to sexual issues, than men, in general are, and this is reflected in the fact that women are more vulnerable to being victims of sexual harrassment, than men are.

So, if decent men are educated that talking about sexual matters with women (unless they’re in a romantic relationship with the women they’re discussing these things with) causes them pain, and hurt, they’re not going to do it. But we have to be clear what the rules are. A good rule is that, talking about any sexual matters is inappropriate.

Hence the importance of sexual harrassment education in the workplace.

Decent men don’t want to hurt women. And when sexual harrassment is framed in this way, that it hurts women, as it should be framed, decent men won’t do it. Sometimes they just don’t mean to be hurtful, they just don’t understand that men and wmen, in general are different about these things.

But men should take a page out of women’s book on this. Women have the more evolved view, concerning sexual matters.

You’re right that a mere settlement is not necessarily an admission of guilt, and I don’t think that we can conclude that it is in Mr. Cain’s case.

I think that Bill Clinton, to not mince words, is a bad guy. The case that he he has mistreated a lot of women, seems strong to me. Not just Paula Jones, (although what he did to her is unconscionable) but the worst is the claim that he actually raped a woman in the 1970′s. Juanita Brodderick, in 1999, claimed that Clinton, while he was Attorney General for Arkansas, in 1978, raped her. Her story is very credible. It made me sick how his hollywood friends were worshipping him at his latest birthday party. In my opinion, (and not just mine) he’s a sociopath. But I digress.

Because even if he was found innocent on all charges it would still cost more money, and do more damage to his reputation, to go through a court trial.

It’s actually pretty hard to prove sexual harassment in the courts, because not only do you have to prove the situation, you also have to prove that you took good-faith measures to fix the situation and he did nothing. It’s a high standard.

But the very act of filing charges is the real damage – even if you’re found innocent, people just assume that the sort of person who would sexually harass an employee is also the sort of person who could and would get away with it legally (through devious means). Better for one’s reputation to just pay the woman off before charges are filed: after all, if she really had a great case, why would she settle out of court?

If employees have the right to not be made uncomfortable in the workplace, then extend that right to all employees, at all times.

But that is not our normal attitude toward workplace politics. We normally believe that these are adults, not children, and therefore they should take care of themselves, instead of the government treating them as if they were a family that needs regulating – with employers as the mommies and daddies and the employees as the helpless children that need protecting.

It has to be consistent. If we want to reduce employees to the status of helpless, vulnerable beings that need the government to protect them from their “parents”, then that should be the standard across the board. (Of course, given that nothing comes free, that standard wouldn’t survive long, because the costs would be intolerable).

If there are limits on what is unacceptable behavior in a workplace, then spell them out: define what is criminal, and why – and make it apply to all employees, regardless of motive.

Real crimes are not based on identity politics or identity politics dynamics. When doing something is a crime when you do it to a gay man – but not to a homeless man – then either the homeless man is not being granted equality under the law, or the gay man is being allowed to play the victim over a pseudocrime.

Which is what “sexual harassment” is – a pseudocrime: something that would be legal if a man did it “to” a male coworker becomes illegal when done to a female coworker, even if the male coworker was made uncomfortable by the same aggressive hostile action. Because men are expected to be grownups and women are treated like children who can’t defend themselves.

It can’t really be a crime if you can’t tell where the line is between acceptable vs. criminal. Sexual harassment means whatever the so-called “victim” wants it to mean. Anyone who has ever raised kids ought to know that you can’t make it a crime to “cause” your little sister to feel bad. You have to actually define the behaviors that are not acceptable. Putting your hand on someone’s leg can’t be a crime because there are plausible and likely circumstances where such a thing might be welcome. Refusing to take your hand away if the lady tells you to, on the other hand, can be construed as a crime.

Women have taken the idea that blatant sexual coercion is evil and they have squandered that moral outrage – that political capital – on game-playing. Now we have a situation where blatant sexual coercion is lumped together with calling a woman “honey”, and both are supposed to be treated the same as rape. But they’re not. Rape is serious business, and the sort of blatant sexual coercion that people think of when they think of sexual harassment is a form of rape – but just making a pass at someone (and taking “no” for an answer) is not in the same league, absent serious retaliation. And just “making a woman feel uncomfortable” is not in the same league, either.

Empowering the women who claim to be victims based on trivial things necessarily also disempowers the women who genuinely are victims of real sexual coercion, because the entire notion of “sexual harassment” has been severely trivialized by collapsing the category distinctions between real abuses vs. trivial complaints and pseudocrimes.

Finally:

If one employee has the right to not be made to feel bullied, why don’t all employees have that right? Why are certain types of sexual dynamics singled out as if they were more important than other forms of bullying? What we have now is a situation where we judge whether bullying took place according to the presence or absence of sexual data, instead of the presence or absence of bullying.

I don’t carry a brief for Cain and don’t really want to get into a discussion of whether or not sexual harassment law has been a great leap forward morally (I think the results have been mixed). But I am fairly certain that your citing of Mr. Cain “settling” as an admission of guilt is incorrect. The settlement in question as I understand it was not for “sexual harassment” and was made with the woman after she (and he?) left the NRA and was further made without his knowledge. That last bit is crucial.

As to settling on a claim of sexual harassment being a disqualifier for the Presidency — one wonders why folks on the Left did not feel that way during the Clinton era? He settled with Paula Jones for $875,000.

It’s certainly possible, as I noted, that these charges against Mr. Cain are false. But why would he agree to a settlement?

If they’re all false, either these women decided on their own to come forward, without any communication with each other, or they conspired to do so.

What do you mean by the claim that these charges are “politically motivated?” do you mean that they’re made up to discredit him?

It seems to me that, if these charges are true, voters are entitled to be aware of them. I would hope you would agree. Do you believe that the charges against Clinton, of sexual misbehavior, should have been brought to our attention? I do.

I agree with Nikolai that, any charge brought forward, should be based on sufficient evidence.

If these charges against Mr. Cain are true, they disqualify him as presidential material.

Certainly sexual harassment is serious, but it’s not as serious as rape.

We have made great progress against sexual harassment, and if we have a president who is guilty of what these women claim, that would be, in my judgment, a great step backwards morally, in this area.

What would be a fair standard for sexual harassment, then? I don’t see how a woman having the right to accuse a man of treating her unjustly is unfair. I think we can and should not assume the woman is immediately right; we should look at the evidence and see whether or not the woman’s claim is legitimate. Now, there are some sexual harassment claims that aren’t carried out in this judicious fashion, but that’s not an argument against them on the whole. It’s just not the case that the second a woman brings forth a sexual harassment charge that she gets what she wants. That claim is not found in evidence.

No, there is no logical reason at all to suppose that having four accusers instead of one obviously means a man is guilty of something.

Whether Cain is guilty or not, it is clear that these charges are politically motivated – his rivals and/or his ideological opponents are working to see him discredited.

The first charge was not adequate. The settlement was too small for it to have been anything serious, and “sexual harassment” is too vague a charge. So whether or not he is guilty of anything, the only way to discredit him (and clearly someone wants to discredit him) is to increase the size of the “case” against him.

This case really highlights what is wrong with the whole notion of “sexual harassment”. A man may be presumed guilty of what amounts to rape, and his career destroyed – all on the say-so of a single woman or a small group of women, who are granted the right to be spared any and all real cross-examination.

It is an uglier world when these rules replace the rules of justice as a basis for judging and punishing our fellow man.