I think that there's a bit of a misunderstanding about this section, both amongst people who are disturbed by it and a few of the people seeking to justify it.

I think that there's a bit of a misunderstanding about this section, both amongst people who are disturbed by it and a few of the people seeking to justify it. I don't think that the audience here is intended to be communities at large; I think the intended audience is specifically those people who have an ethical (and perhaps legal) obligation to investigate allegations or rumours of exploitation within their organization. I believe the authors are arguing that they, specifically, have no business issuing anyone with a "presumption of innocence" in leu of a thorough examination of the circumstances, regardless of whether or not they find the whole thing awkward or socially embarrassing. I could be wrong, of course, and in fact I am wrong in my imputations of the intention of others with startling frequency. However, I am usually fairly aggrieved by the sort of apologetics with which feminism becomes an excuse for the arrogation of power, and I am not really getting that feeling in this case.