I just can't see the panel reinstating him unless both charges are dropped
What does "zero tolerance" mean? To me, it implies that all transgressions, however seemingly minor, will be punished. To me, HOW they will be punished is a separate issue. I don't think "zero tolerance" necessarily has to mean that all alleged transgressions must be punished by kicking the athlete out of the program.
I could imagine an athlete being charged with sexual assault for patting a girl on the rear. I'm not trying to set up an equivalence here, just trying to illustrate why it might be reasonable to keep the fact that any alleged offense will be punished separate from the issue of what the punishment will be.
If the account that is going around is accurate, and the incident only occured after some consensual fooling around, and after an exchange of numbers, a one-month suspension, with Terrance's NIL money for that time going to local rape education/prevention programs, might strike me as reasonable. But all my kids are boys, so I'll never appreciate the angst of raising girls.