[mildbow]

That's a good point. Thanks for bringing it up so I can clarify my position :)

It's not about calling one person a liar vs the other. Rather, it's about accepting that there are multiple sides to every story. Without an unbiased third party, it devolves into he said/she said.

If formal charges aren't brought forward (which would allow for more facts/third party analysis), then why should one person be denigrated? Should a hint of an accusation, sourced by third parties, be enough to fire someone over? If so, what does that firing actually solve?[0]

Anyway, I understand this is a trigger issue, esp. after Susan's post, but to over-react is as bad under-reacting: you want to fix the problem, and you can't do that when you are busy scapegoating.

[0] I'm talking about this specific case, not sexual harassment cases in general.

[x0x0]

This isn't a criminal court.

Your two sides dodge is the same thing used by sexual harassers: oh, well, if it wasn't on video, then I guess opinions differ!

This is more than a hint of an accusation: Google HR investigated, and found some evidence to create a belief that Amit acted improperly enough to warrant termination. That's far from a foregone conclusion (how many execs are fired for sexual harassment? Not many.)