You saw “sexual assault” though, despite your not having seen the word “conviction” anywhere.
The ‘dismissal’ was apparently a technicality in the court, easy enough to happen. He was not “acquitted.”
He was, nonetheless, found “responsible” for the sexual assault by the school’s investigative committee. The committee is not in a position to convict.
It seems you are trying to create a scenario whereby this poor fellow was falsely maligned, similar to the Rolling Stone story that they have just retracted. The situations are not similar. In this case there was an attempted official criminal prosecution that failed, and an actual investigation and finding by the University, not merely false allegations. Or is that difference lost on you?