Wow--interesting discussion here.
Not guilty isn't the same as didn't do it--it means not proven beyond the reasonable doubts of a jury. Anyone involved in the criminal justice system can recite stories of culpable people who won a not guilty verdict.
Schools have definitely struggled with implementing good procedures to deal with allegations of sexual misconduct. Finding the right balance is really, really hard. No matter how you cut it, a finder of fact (whether a jury, a judge, a panel of professors, whatever) will struggle with close calls, and inevitably get some wrong. What we do know is that historically, universities have not done enough to protect (mostly) women from abuse. It may be that the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, though, frankly, that would surprise me. Which isn't to say that innocent people haven't been harmed.
EDIT: But, the freshman writer of that opinion piece for an opinion outlet knows very little about standards of evidence and how they work in the real world. Using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard would be the death knell of Title IX sexual assault queries. And no, suspension, or even expulsion, from a university is not close to the same as a criminal conviction. Will it impact a person's life? Sure, but nothing close to the kind of impact that comes with a criminal conviction. Should the Department of Education issue more direct and consistent guidelines? Absolutely.
I don't know enough about the facts alleged/proven in the Cephus case to even have an opinion, other than that the jury clearly didn't struggle with it (45 minutes is FAST for a jury).