I read about this in an alumni list I subscribe to . . . something's not right, here. I was under the impression that relationships between male and female mids were perfectly acceptable, so long as (1) they didn't "celebrate" that relationship within the confines of Mother B, or anywhere else on the Yard, and (2) the relationship didn't involve a plebe and an upper classman. The way I read this story, this couple did the consentual dirty deed off the premises. What gives? Why boot the guy over that?
You said it yourself: according to the article, the guy did "'celebrate' that relationship within the confines of Mother B, or anywhere else on the Yard."
So did the girl, apparently, and if so she should be dealt with accordingly.
I think the sex probably has little to do with it. The key is the alcohol and related conduct.
Notice that this attorney said that his client admitted to drinking. I'm not sure what the current penalty for that is, but in my day that was either a 5000 or 6000 level offense if committed on grounds. The attorney also claims that the girl "lied" about her drinking, which means she denied it. Now unless there is affirmative evidence to disprove that, the difference in the two cases may be he used alcohol, and she didn't.
With the drinking age at 21 now (unlike back in the day....), for a mid to drink underage is a conduct violation. And I suppose there's even a chance that he used a bogus I.D. or something to get it, which would be an honor offense.
In any case, I think the real issue here is likely to be the alcohol consumption and his apparantly rowdy behavior rather than their playing hide the salami. The defense attorney just spins it as being about sex because he's trying to claim that they engaged in the same conduct, i.e., sex, and so he deemphasizes the alcohol, and claims she "lied" about it. Apparantly, the evidence of her lying wasn't good enough.