In Defense of the Presumption of Innocence

This morning I watched one of CNN's talking-heads segments in which three liberal commentators sounded off on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations.  Normally CNN would have people from opposing viewpoints duke it out in a flurry alternating 30-second soundbites, but this time it was like the three guests were in a race to see who could convict Cain the fastest.  All three were absolutely positive that every one of Cain's accusers was being completely truthful.  One of the commentators, whose name escapes me right now, indignantly proclaimed that Americans are "infected with a sickness" that causes them to not believe women who come forward with allegations of sexual harassment.  He concluded his mini-lecture by imploring that this behavior has got to stop.

I agree that when such allegations are brought forward, they should be taken seriously. Investigators - or even observers, for that matter - should never begin by assuming the woman is lying.  But I strongly believe that the accused must also be afforded the presumption of innocence.  It's totally hypocritical to say that the public and the media have no right to call these women liars, but calling Herman Cain a sexual predator before all the facts have come to light is fair game.

It's certainly true that, for many people, their own sexist attitudes prevent them from taking these allegations seriously.  It's also true that in some cases, victims pay a heavy social and professional cost for coming forward.  So there is no question that these women need advocates.  But sometimes it seems those advocates' favourite tactic is to silence legitimate questions and concerns surrounding the accusations and the accuser.  For example, Slate.com's Libby Copeland recently posted a rather hyperbolic screed claiming that skeptics of Cain's most recent accuser see her as a "money-grubbing slut".  Rather than facilitate purposeful dialogue, these accusations are intended to take certain legitimate questions off the table.

The fact remains that several of Cain's accusers have benefited handsomely from these allegations by way of cash settlements.  This could potentially be a motive to fabricate false allegations.  But according to certain factions, we are forbidden from considering this possibility, lest we be accused of practicing abject misogyny.  The problem with that viewpoint is that it denies the accused party a right that is extended to every other defendant, and that is the right to challenge the veracity or the accusations by attacking the credibility of the accuser.  In Herman Cain's case, the only plausible defense is to claim that his accusers are lying.  And if Cain is alleging that they are lying, then it behooves him to establish a motive for those lies.  Money is the most obvious one.

In the case of the most recent accuser, Sharon Bialek (the only one whose identity has been made public so far), I have some concerns about her truthfulness.  Unlike the other accusers, she had recently been fire from her job at the National Restaurant Association, the organization where Cain was CEO at the time of the alleged incidents.  According to her, she had approached Cain for help in getting her job back.  Among other things, she alleges that, out of nowhere, Cain slid his hand up her skirt and "reached for [her] genitals", and when she objected, he replied, "You want your job back don't you?"  Now if these advances did indeed take place and were unwanted (and were known to be unwanted) as is being alleged, then that's not sexual harassment.  That's sexual assault.  And, since Cain was not her employer at the time of the incident, what was stopping her from pressing charges or launching a civil suit at the time that it happened (or at any point in the 15 years since)?  Moreover, as someone who had recently been terminated, is it possible that Ms. Bialek may have been a disgruntled employee, or that she was seeking to entrap her former employer?

There may be sound answers to all these questions.  But if we are going to convict Cain in the court of public opinion, these questions need to be addressed.  If we are forbidden from even pondering such questions, then all men in positions of power will be supremely vulnerable to the rare but consequential false accusations of vindictive, deceitful, opportunistic accusers.