Not having sex with someone who isn't a willing partner and with someone who is drunk are two completely different things. The article is trying to use the second to discredit the first which is dishonest. I don't have enough information about that specific case to make a judgement on it, but from what was provided in the article it does sound to have been a bad decision by the College. But I don't see any reason to connect this with an issue in the wider policy. Isolated instances like this, while not good are just that, isolated. Also needed would to be to explain what's wrong with the policy that lead to this, and how it can be done better to lessen the likelihood of it happening again. Otherwise it's just letting perfect be the enemy of good.