This is a well measured response from Harris. He is correct in not allowing Krauss to join them on stage on the day the news broke - because as he said, it would be fruitless with not only having that "elephant in the room" but also of Krauss having to address the allegations at that inappropriate time.

And he is correct in stating that with all the evidence against Krauss, he cannot but accept his faults. Denying it will simply make Krauss' situation worse.

I admire Harris for stating that "when there is smoke, there is fire" and that is sufficient to be careful - without passing full judgement. And being careful (e.g. not allowing Krauss to participate in their talk) is not judgement in and of itself.

Well Krauss's behavior has been inappropriate for a long time now and many women have come forward against this even in the scientific community. Flirting must be limited to verbal interaction. But either Krauss doesn't understand the difference between flirting and misbehaving or he doesn't care about it.

I've had so many men of all ages, religious beliefs, and different social standings make moves, or try to grope me, that I tend to see most men as sexual predators, or at least potentially so.

Because of the negative consequences of reporting sexual harrassment, I tend to believe women who are brave enough to report such things, especially if they give details and have friends who remember her telling them about it when it occurred.

Still Sam Harris has a point. If Krauss were better looking and more socially adept, fewer women may have interpreted his attempts to flirt as unwanted advances. There doesn't seem to be an excuse for the more serious charges, however.