Meaning no disrespect, reporting allegations about an incident at a fraternity is very different from singling out an individual using their name or identifying information. It is fairly difficult to recognize DU members at a glance, to say nothing of harassing the entire fraternity. And a person with no inside knowledge can’t tell who the alleged perpetrator(s) are on the basis of this article.
A focus on the risks to the perps also overlooks the benefits of generalized reports, stripped of personally identifiable information. Letting people know about an incident can help other students be aware of a continuing risk. The university itself sends “security alerts” to the student body about some incidents on campus, for much the same reason. One very recent and utterly terrifying case involved a student falling asleep in their dorm room and waking up to someone sexually assaulting them. The university sent a campus-wide e-mail, with information about the incident (including the dorm involved), within hours of that report. It didn’t produce a campaign of harassment against the entire dorm.
DU seemingly knew about the allegations reported in the Maroon, but suspended social events only after they learned the Maroon was investigating. If the Maroon had kept quiet, it’s possible they would still be throwing parties. The statistics suggest there is at worst an 8% chance the Maroon is slandering DU’s good name (lol), and a 92% chance they warned other students about a serious risk at the fraternity’s events.
So while reports with personally identifiable information about an individual would open up a massive can of worms, I’m not feeling a lot of righteous outrage over the Maroon’s approach in this case.