I would think that those with the most internal conflict about this would be those who argue for minimal evidence standards like those advocated by the Dept of Ed and used by many Universities, and those who support currently vague notions of "too drunk to consent". They would be the ones most likely to also claim racial bias against black defendants, so they would be torn between wanting the harshest punishment based on nothing but the woman's word under the assumption that no woman ever lie about being raped or are ever wrong about who raped them, but also wanting to use this as an example of racial bias.
For those who have questioned the idea that intoxication = rape or that rape accusers are never wrong and thus their claim should automatically lead to punishment, this case isn't much of a problem. This case appears to have far more evidence in support of rape than almost every college rape case that been discussed here lately, and more than 99% of "too drunk to consent" date rape cases. If sex occurred at all, its a minimum of statutory rape, and the claim is that the drugs were slipped to her without her knowledge, which is a crime in itself in contrast to voluntary intoxication of most "too drunk to consent" cases. Also, there is enough evidence for these men to have been actually arrested by the state police, in contrast to other cases under discussion where no legal action is ever taken yet the accused is harshly punished by the University because it employs standards of evidence that essentially equate an accusation with guilt.
The police statement says that after having the rights read, the defendants admitted to bringing her to their room and "performing sexual acts on the victim without her consent". So, pretty much everything you need for a rape conviction on evidential grounds, even if she wasn't intoxicated, as opposed to many of the cases under discussion in which the facts generally point to consensual sex or are at best neutral, and the intoxication is the sole grounds for the rape charge.
The students haven't been "expelled", but only suspended from the team and temporarily barred from campus. The minimal (no evidence required) standard supported by many here demands these men be barred from campus and would basically guarantee that they get expelled even if all legal charges are dropped. However, since this case has nothing in common with and far more evidence than the kind of "too drunk to consent" cases under dispute, we wouldn't even need those minimal standards of evidence defended by many here for the Universities current response to be warranted pending the outcome of the criminal charges.
