To the Editor:
Re “I Believe Tara Reade. I’m Voting for Joe Biden,” by Linda Hirshman (Op-Ed, May 9):
Ms. Hirshman has presented us with a choice nobody in America should have to make. I totally agree with The Times’s recent editorial call for a thorough investigation to take place before the Democratic nominating convention.
If by that vital hour it is not yet clear that the former vice president would be an uncompromised nominee, I think it becomes the delegates’ responsibility to nominate someone who is. That would be tragic for Mr. Biden if he is innocent, but the stakes are too high to miss the opportunity to replace a historically bad president.
On the other hand, if close scrutiny points to Joe Biden’s innocence, he deserves to receive the nomination he fought hard for. He would stand a good chance of being elected and surrounding himself with competent people whom he would listen to, and restoring respectability to that office.
Democratic leaders who are putting their heads in the sand and assuming that Ms. Reade’s allegations will not go anywhere shamefully dismiss her right to be heard and also risk an “October surprise” that could result in either a potentially guilty man as president-elect or an unrestrained second-term power-drunk president doing God only knows what. No stone should be left unturned in preventing either of these scenarios from happening. Let the investigation begin.
Bobby Braddock
Nashville
To the Editor:
Taking women seriously does not mean one should accept allegations of sexual assault without a full and fair examination of the evidence.
I conduct workplace investigations of alleged misconduct, including sexual assault. Although many witnesses initially appear credible, additional evidence may reveal bias, inconsistencies, gaps or errors in their stories. Only after interviewing individuals with relevant knowledge and reviewing relevant documents can one reasonably determine whether allegations of misconduct are supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Tara Reade’s allegations have not been put to that basic test. One need not denigrate her corroborating witnesses to ask that their potential bias and credibility be vetted before their accounts are accepted as support for believing Ms. Reade.
One must also consider the significant factors weighing against the likelihood that Ms. Reade’s current account is true — including her retweeting praise for Joe Biden and his work combating sexual assault as recently as 2017. Had she truly believed that Mr. Biden sexually assaulted her, that action would have made no sense. Nor does it seem likely she and her corroborating witnesses all would have remained silent about Mr. Biden’s alleged assault for all these years, including when he was chosen to run as vice president.
We should not be deciding accusations as serious as Ms. Reade’s in the court of public opinion. Linda Hirshman’s conclusion that she believes Ms. Reade is premature.
Jillian Barron
Seattle
To the Editor:
“Utilitarian morality” — what a nifty concept. Do the right thing when it serves us but not when it doesn’t.
Margaret McGirr
Greenwich, Conn.
To the Editor:
If hand-wringing were as effective as hand washing, Democrats would never get Covid-19. Linda Hirshman struggles with supporting Joe Biden in light of Tara Reade’s accusations. She says voting for him won’t be easy. She invokes David Hume and John Rawls as support for her ultimate decision. Really? Joe Biden over Donald Trump is the easiest choice ever. You don’t need fancy degrees or philosophical navel-gazing to know that.
Jordan Eth
Tiburon, Calif.