What is not on YouTube is literally every other part of the story. For what we know (as described in the article), it's possible that the student was always calm and rational, or that he screamed abuse at the top of the lungs to university staff; or anything in between. We simply don't know (as described in the article), so it's quite manipulative to describe the university refuting the student's claims as "gaslighting".
Please note that I said that siding completely with the student is premature. I stand by that. If everything the student alleges is true, it is an outrageous story. However, it is very clear that this article was written as outrage porn. So we should wait and see what the court conclude actually happened. After all, it's not like this is a timely case, the incident happened over two years ago.
Also, that we can't now either way is exactly my point. We can't disprove either the student's nor the university's misconduct. Maybe ask yourself why you instantly see that when it comes to the student, but fail to see the exact same thing in regards to the defendants.
Well, the good thing is that the court will actually decide the facts and merits. With evidence and deliberation and reason and all those good things.
Wouldn't critical thinking also mean that you should keep in mind that an expelled student describing the situation in his legal complaint will be necessarily be biased? The complaint is literally written in the way that is best for his case.
This should raise a few eyebrows with any critical reader. And indeed, the article simply completely sides with the student and takes every allegation as already proven – going so far as discrediting the university's defence of what happened as "gaslighting".
For all we learn from the article, the student may have been increasingly hostile to a point that warranted suspension. Siding so completely with the student against the university seems to be very premature. Unfortunately, the author seems to suffer from a critical misunderstanding about what a motion to dismiss is and isn't. A motion to dismiss claims that a case can't be won even under the assumption that everything alleged is true. That's why the opinion takes everything the student claims at face value – because that's the bar for a motion to dismiss. The court did not decide that these events were factual; just that if they all were that the case has to go on.
I'm not commenting on what happened. I don't know. But the article feels quite manipulative, even under the assumption that the misrepresentation of the court's opinion is an honest mistake, this article tries to enrage the reader. Not the kind of content I would have hoped to see under a brand like "reason.com".