This is clearly a legal matter - and college based tribunals and councils have often looked like a Star Chamber or Kangaroo courts. That's not a mistake - it's

This is clearly a legal matter - and college based tribunals and councils have often looked like a Star Chamber or Kangaroo courts. That's not a mistake - it's the inevitable outcome of a non-judicial and closeted legal system that is unconstrained by transparency and fairness. In fact, this was the exact fate of the original star chamber: "The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes. However, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded." So how do you make a non-governmental court even more powerful? You make up laws and definitions as you go. There is a difference between the legal definition of racism/sexism and a (sometimes held) academic definition of racism/sexism. The argument put forth here fails the basic doctrines of equal protection and application of the law. When you combine Unelected and unconstrained tribunals, with non-legal justifications of crime, it's inevitable that there will be abuses and usage of that power not just in the persuit of good and noble goals (where it always starts) but in the systematic destruction of people with different viewpoints the accuser (where it ends). People are objecting not because of the guilt or innocence of the accused, but because it's a arbitrary use of unconstrained people-crushing power in the first place. It's a unconstrained weapon, and the only the wielder is safe from it's effects.