Allegations of rape are generally really problematic in a society were rape is normalized and the justice system has a skewed view of what a "legit rape" is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture). I'm not too familiar with cases in the US but the "legit rape" in my country is more or less "the black man/immigrant that lurks in the shrubbery in a dark park". This despite the fact that most rapist are "normal" men. This leads to a situation were the few cases that do get reported and have enough evidence are dismissed in court because the minimum punishment for rape is a life destroying two years in prison. The punishment scale doesn't really recognize the "normal young men" and the courts have no tools but to free the alleged rapist.

I agree that the journalist behind the Rolling stones article should have heard the alleged rapists. It's bad journalism not to, but I seriously don't think the story would benefit from hearing them unless someone actually would admit guilt.

What really struck me as weird in the Reason article is how the colleges are involved in rape cases. I suppose it's PR but how on Earth are they able to expel rape:y students on their own without going through the justice system.

That article, as far as I can tell, makes a single point, namely that rapists shouldn't be expelled from campus, for various reasons.

I'm not sure why that points to gaping holes in the UVA case. While some of the criticism is valid, frankly I find the overly sensationalist deconstruction of the original article for the sake of attention and page impressions rather distasteful.