I haven't seen all the details, but the ones I've seen are so vague it's very hard for me to decide who's guilty and who isn't. That's largely because, under new standards, you don't have describe what it is the offending party actually did. You merely describe how it made you feel, and that is supposedly proof of guilt. "I was harassed because I felt uncomfortable" means "If I think I was harassed, then I was." It's impossible for anyone to escaped condemnation with criteria like this. I think that's why so many of the these new leaders in anti-racism, body positivity etc. eventually end up being cancelled.