You're asking GT to go where he is unwilling since he doesn't seen interested in the concept of how the burden of proof and expectations of consequences are radically different, depending on whether you're talking about being disqualified for a job because of public opinion, being made to pay damages in a civil lawsuit, or being convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. Every case is different and must be judged on its own merit and the evidence available. The most fundamental fact of the U.S. criminal justice system is that the legal burden belongs to the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is not required to prove innocence. Refusing to accept this pretty much disqualifies you from the discussion as a serious participant.The evidence from NPR is that more than one woman had consensual sex with the tom cat, which he's acknowledged. Those women "felt" as though they had to for their jobs, or at least that's what they're saying, which the cat has denied. Now, tell me, who has to prove it? What kind of real evidence should be presented? I'd think it would go much deeper than just the allegations.
Don't know, but I'm willing to look at all of the evidence with an open mind, keeping the burden of proof where it belongs. How about you?
With the several examples of alleged harassment at NPR, so far the accused have only lost their jobs. This is fine with me. If public opinion sides with the accusers, then their jobs are gone and that's it. This is also true of most of the politicians who have been accused. They've been forced to resign by their own parties and, in one case, lost an election that they would have certainly won had not public opinion gone against them because of the allegations. If the allegations against the President become too much of a scandal for him (or his party) then he can resign. But legally forcing him out is not likely to be easy. He'd have to be impeached and that then becomes a totally different standard - a guilty vote by 2/3 of the Senate that crimes were committed.
There are some facing lawsuits. Since these are civil and not criminal cases, the burden of proof is only preponderance of evidence. Whichever side is more credible, will likely win.
But if some of these incidents turn out to be over criminal sex crimes, then the opinion of ignorant Americans who assume the accused is guilty and is required to prove themselves innocent in court, becomes a force to swing the pendulum too far in the direction of uncritical belief in the accusers.