"It is a near-religious teaching among many people today that if you are against sexual assault, then you must always believe individuals who say they have been assaulted."

"Questioning in a particular instance whether a sexual assault occurred violates that principle. Examining evidence and concluding that a particular accuser is not indeed a survivor, or a particular accused is not an assailant, is a sin that reveals that one is a rape denier, or biased in favor of perpetrators. This is the set of axioms on which one might build a suggestion that challenging the accuracy of 'The Hunting Ground' contributes to a hostile environment on campus. If I am a student at a school where professors seem to disbelieve one accuser’s account, then it is possible that they could disbelieve me if I am assaulted. That possibility makes me feel both that I am unsafe and that my school is a sexually hostile environment. Under this logic, individuals would not feel safe on campus unless they could know that professors are closed off to the possibility that a particular person accused of sexual misconduct may be innocent or wrongly accused. But, then, what would be the purpose of a process in which evidence on multiple sides is evaluated?"

From "Shutting Down Conversations About Rape at Harvard Law," by Jeannie Suk, in The New Yorker.