Yes, you can claim we don't know all the facts.  You are thus stating that the RG did a bad job.  The story should tell us compelling factors.  UO is a public institution and thus its basic actions should be public.  If there were witnesses the story should have disclosed so.  In fact, the story indicates that the young man's objections are based on the arbitrariness of the decision.  Absent witnesses and given a 4 month delay, what evidence except for the testimony of the two involved could there be?  Secret video recordings made by the young woman?  Since UO is a public institution we should be fully informed on the basis (not personal details) of decisions it makes.  No justification for the decision was made in terms of solid evidence.  If you know the people at the UO, you would not be surprised that an arbitrary PC decision was made.  Its just how they do things.  You know, criminal trials are public.  UO makes its proceedings secret.  That alone is enough to contest the action.