Here's the big issue: "Legally speaking" isn't the problem. Legally, we have three strikes laws that send people to live without parole for shoplifting... but only if you're black. Legally, we have a crusade against a kid who had consensual sex because a counselor spends 6 hours convincing someone she was raped. Legally, a university can kick someone out of school for sexual assault with no evidence whatsoever thereby blackballing him from all other universities. All that shit will get sussed out in the courts eventually, but "the courts" are heavily tilted towards large institutional players. Money talks. Unless the ACLU feels like taking on Podunk University, Johnny College is fucked because the prevailing climate is "fuck Johnny College he's a rapist until proven otherwise."
I feel like my point was missed... let me try rephrasing: A company can fire an employer for an accusation of rape without a court order. In California at least, a landlord can issue an unconditional termination to a tenant similarly without a court order. And now it's the case that a university can (will? more often?) also suspend a student without a court order. As you said, in each of these cases, it's on the courts to sort it out eventually if the accused person sues or if the offender has also violated civil law. I'm not defending this structure, just asking if it's fair to equate these situations. It seems the same vein of logic pervades through all three: let private institutions and individuals sort it out in the intermediate before it is brought to court.
You didn't miss your point, I didn't explain myself properly. Let me try again. The existing case law doesn't account for a changing social or political landscape. In this case, University X could sever their agreement with you, send you packing, and say "we're not going to let you enroll again until your poor victim signs up for her classes you filthy rapist." Existing case law says they're just fine doing that (let's suppose - because I'm in no position to argue what is or isn't, only what I see the problem being) because fuckin' A, go to college somewhere else. But what if Universities A through Z won't take your transfer credits from University X because you're a filthy rapist? Well, sucks to be you, but surely Private College One will take your credits. They're very rape-friendly. Except Private College One costs nine times as much as University X and you were barely scraping by on your financial aid. Oh, and by the way, have fun applying for scholarships now. What happened at University X, by the way? So legally, you don't get to go to college. Sure - you still have options, but those options have been severely curtailed - legally. And I think you'll find that city and municipal courts generally provide stopgaps to cover the issues that state and federal levels don't - in California at least, rent control and tenant's rights allow a buddy of mine to sublet a condo on the beach in Santa Monica for the same price he paid for it when he first moved in back in '92. Not saying that's a good thing - just pointing out that your landlord/tenant thing doesn't tell the whole story. And the whole story here indicates that well-meaning laws and policies enacted by well-meaning people are grinding a growing number of unfortunate college-aged males into grist.
Some elements of what you said could also apply if the situation happened at a company, but I get that the context is significantly different among college-aged people. I think in general, this is a hairy discussion to have, since it seems like rape and sexual harassment are generally things not taken to court, whatever the context (Domestic, academic, military, or at a company).