All of the author's complaints come down to issues of "due process". Due process doesn't mean running a trial or decision-making process in the particular way

All of the author's complaints come down to issues of "due process". Due process doesn't mean running a trial or decision-making process in the particular way that US courts do, rather it means running such a process in some fashion that is consistent and reasonable. Personally, I believe that it is extremely important to maintain due process in our trials and procedures. In this case the author fundamentally has two complaints. The first complaint is that when he was accused of a Title IX violation, the procedure was so unreasonable and so biased against the defendant that winning cost him $27,000 and an entire year of no contact with his university and no response to the charges (thus destroying his reputation). The second complaint is that he was slated to receive an extremely harsh punishment (loss of tenure and being fired) for what he considers a rather minor violation (having a consensual relationship with a former student who was technically still associated with the university). All told, I agree: the ultimate outcome (him resigning) may be reasonable, but the process for reaching it clearly was not.