So here is CSU-Pueblo’s policy: http://csu-pueblo-policies.colostate.edu/policy.aspx?id=55
CSU-Pueblo may proceed against the wishes of a person who may have been assaulted. I could support this idea in a different type of case, that involved battery with obvious physical injuries, where the victim still did not want to proceed (that does happen). However, in this case, I agree that proceeding against the accused–when the woman did not want the case to go forward–would not be right.
I cannot tell from what I have read so far whether the woman agreed to have the proceedings go forward, or did not agree. It is possible that she was under some pressure due to her job as a trainer. It is almost certain that she thought the sanctions, if any, would be light.
When the proceedings went forward, I think it is wrong if the only evidence was hearsay evidence from people to whom the woman in question had talked. Again, there I agree with the majority on this thread.
Here is where I diverge from others: If the woman talked to the investigator and said to him exactly what she is reported to have said in the article, then there is a potential problem for the man. The statements of the woman to the investigator may not be considered as hearsay, in the CSU-Pueblo proceedings. I can’t comment on the legal aspect of this.
If you look at II.A. and III. of the CSU-Pueblo policy, and just take the statements that are there on their plain substance, and you also believe the statement of events by the woman that were included in the article, on their plain face, then a violation occurred. I accept that this may seem totally unfair to other posters. But please take a look at what is written there and compare it with the woman’s statement. If you take just the first part of the interaction (as described by the woman and included in the article), in my opinion it matches the situation in the CSU policy.
A claim that it does not would have to hinge on the interaction that immediately followed. The CSU policy does not have a lot of give there, however.
A panel that consisted of people who applied the policy as written (yes or no to each element, and assuming that the statement as made by the woman in the article was admissible one way or another) would be stuck, even if they thought that it was not fair, in the larger picture. One could go for “jury/panel nullification,” though I would not have, based on the information that is out there.
It is not clear who decides on the sanction in a case–at least, I didn’t read the CSU policy exhaustively enough to determine, other than “the University.” Perhaps it is stated in other policy documents. I think expulsion is harsh in this particular case. This is where a simple statistical report would not reflect the complexity of the situation, because the initial events do match II.A. and III.