I thought the claim here was the person was not capable of giving consent since they were too drunk?
The claim here, by Loren, is that the University is "doing it wrong" because they continue to investigate if the two students involved in this case violated University code of conduct.
In general, sex without consent is rape. People in certain conditions are considered, prima facie, incapable of consent - minors, mentally incapacitated, and drunk/drugged after a certain point... i.e. passed out or too far gone to understand the nature and consequences of the situation.
The problem is determining "too drunk" - which is why anyone who actually gives a damn about not raping or (failing concern about the other person) self-preservation, should avoid having sex with relative strangers where they cannot confirm age, mental capacity and/or sobriety.
In the OP case, clearly the Judge believed that the woman was (1) not drunk to the point of incapacity, and (2) not raped in her dorm. I will assume that he had additional evidence we are not privy to in making his decision.
I will, however, dispute article's assumption that the woman's behavior in the bar has any bearing on whether she was raped in her dorm room. One has nothing to do with the other, and her sobriety or lack of does not play into that point.
And I will dispute Loren's position that a Judge's ruling of no rape automatically means the young man is also innocent of violating University policy. One has nothing to do with the other, and it is up to the University to determine if their own code of conduct was violated.