A recent rape trial here illustrates the difficulty of improving sexual misconduct policies on college campuses. Given today’s alcohol-fueled hookup culture, such efforts must refine an "affirmative consent" standard. The recent trial is a case study for a proposed task force devoted to this issue.

Key elements of the trial: Two college students, both teens, one male and one female, are among a group of friends drinking in a University of Hawaii-Manoa dorm. The young woman leaves for her own dorm room. The young man texts her, crudely but clearly asking her to return so they can have sex. She texts back, saying that he should come to her room instead, but later does return to his room.

Sex occurs. The young woman claims she has been raped. The young man claims he has been wronged. A jury sides with the young man, who is acquitted.

The defense says the accused was used as revenge bait to make the accuser’s preferred sex partner jealous. It insists that the verdict proves the sex was consensual all along and that rape charges never should have been filed. The prosecutor disagrees, saying, that despite the verdict, she still believes the young woman, who testified that she had gone over to the young man’s room intending only to kiss and cuddle to make another young man jealous. The accuser said she expressly said no to having sex.

He said, she said. Yet again. This, despite the texts as evidence, which, it could be argued, meet the broadest guidelines for affirmative consent, the kind of clear communication necessary to absolutely affirm that both parties consent to having sexual relations.

Advocates say that imposing affirmative consent requirements on college campuses will instill healthier sexual attitudes, behavior and communication among young adults navigating sometimes new emotional and physical terrain, and should reduce the incidence of sexual assault.

The Honolulu trial, which concluded on March 27, stemmed from an incident in a UH dorm room last September. The accuser called the police, so the case was adjudicated fully in the criminal realm, not as part of the university’s administrative process governing student conduct.

In the incident’s aftermath, however, and amid a pending federal investigation into UH’s handling of sexual misconduct complaints, the UH system updated its sexual misconduct policy to include a requirement that sex partners obtain affirmative consent before coupling.

College administrators, state lawmakers and others committed to improving this policy should dissect the recent criminal trial as part of their work, for it resonates as one that highlights how complicated it can be to untangle the truth, especially in cases that involve people who know each other and who have both been drinking or using other mind-altering substances.

The consequences to both the accuser and the accused can be dire.

A legitimate desire to encourage more victims to come forward and to treat them fairly during the difficult, intensely personal investigative process cannot override the necessity of protecting the due process rights of the accused.

A measure that began this legislative session as a detailed directive for the university, codified in state law, has wisely been amended over the course of the session to one that would establish a task force to review and make recommendations on UH’s executive policy on sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.

That is the preferable approach. Reducing campus sexual assault is an important issue that requires careful, well-defined action. The recent trial only reinforces how important it is to lead with facts, rather than emotion.