And that’s especially so when the policy is defended on the grounds that the students will just go to another university. The innocent expelled students would have their education badly disrupted and delayed. But the guilty students would, by hypothesis, just be at another university, where they’ll be able to attack their classmates (just a different set of classmates).
Indeed, if University A expels 10 students on this ground and they’ll go to University B, while University B expels 10 students on this ground and they’ll go to University A (“we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud”), the actual rapists will just be shuffled around from place to place, so neither university will get safer. And the wrongly accused (by hypothesis, eight or nine of them, compared to one or two correctly accused) will pay the cost.
Of course, perhaps Congressman Polis’s defense of the argument would be that maybe the expelled students from University A won’t be able to easily get admitted to University B, because University B will see the black mark on their records — even if the black mark is just “was suspected of sexual assault, but was never found likely to be guilty” — and refuse to admit the students. But then “we’re talking about them being transferred to another university, for crying out loud” wouldn’t be a very accurate defense of the policy, would it?