I am interested in the Herman Cain accusations not for any political reason, but just out of a sense of fairness. Regardless of what situation the current accusations would arise in, whether it was a presidential campaign or just a friend of mine who was being talked about in this way, I would feel the same way.

I am not an expert in sexual harrassment law, but it deals with a very wide range of behavior, and I feel that without knowing any specific facts about what Mr. Cain was even accused to have done, it is wrong to speculate or to draw any inference that would reflect on his ability to be president (or on his character in any other setting). I also think that the fact that a settlement was made by the National Restaurant Association is totally irrelevant, since legal claims of many kinds are often settled, both those with merit and those without merit.

For example, gender discrimination is one area of sexual harrassment/discrimination. It may be conduct that is completely non-sexual but that is perceived as being directed at someone because of their sex. Examples of discriminatory comments and behaviors may include something as innocent in intention as an employer asking whether an employee is married or plans on having children. (Such conversation may in fact be merely motivated as friendliness in the work place, but yet could potentially still give rise to a sex discrimination claim). As this area of law has evolved over the last several decades, it leaves a wide range of conduct open to interpretation; conduct that may be intended as nothing more than genuine friendliness; and has lead to a mine field for persons in authority in any employment setting. What people may intend as genuine kidding (and yes, perhaps in a moment of mental lapse - which one of us has never had this happen?), or purely innocuous conduct in the intention of simply getting to know someone better, may now be considered sexual harrassment under the law, simply because regardless of the speaker/acter's intention, it may be perceived (even if incorrectly) as sexual discrimination or harrassment by the employee to whom the conduct is directed. I'm not suggesting that the law should not be this way, but I'm simply saying that in my opinion, some of this conduct, particularly conduct that occurred in years past before there was so much emphasis on this area of law in the workplace, would not, in my mind, reflect on the ability or fitness of someone to be president or to hold any other position.

This has lead to alot of sensitivity training, particularly in the past decade, that probably was not as common in the 1990s, when Mr. Cain is accused of the inappropriate conduct. Today, managers and leaders in companies are much more knowledgable of conduct to avoid than they were in the past.

Mr. Cain's race, to me, has nothing to do with the unfairness of the innuendo that has been made of all of this. I would think it was equally unfair regardless of the race of the candidate involved, with no more facts than are known.

Whatever he is accused of having done (which he denies that he even did) might in fact be any where from serious sexual advances to completely innocently-intended nonsexual statements; or anything between these two extremes. Without knowing anything about the specific conduct, I think it is very wrong to judge him whatsoever about any of this. Otherwise, any person, man or woman, could be made to look 'bad' for something that they have said or done (or are accused to have said or done) that a fair-minded person, knowing the actual facts, would in no way hold against them or feel reflected on their character or ability to lead.

Just as people are presumed innocent under our justice system, I think it is wrong to draw any inference at all against Mr. Cain merely because accusations of some form of sexual discrimination or harrassment were made against him over a decade ago; which is all that we know, at least for now. Without any other information than that, to me it is a "so what?"