The testimony of Camp's educators was that his misconduct at trial was rooted in an unconscious sexism and gender bias, but that they thought he could be rehabilitated through instruction on sexism and sexual assault law.  To the contrary, Camp testified at the hearing that he did not accept that his conduct was based in gender bias or sexism but was merely "old fashioned" -- whatever that means.  His own testimony at the hearing contradicted the opinions of those who were trying to help rehabilitate him, and do note that none of them have come to his defence since this report was released.

I can understand the sentiment that the guy should have a chance to rehabilitate himself, but how could the tribunal expect him to learn from his mistakes when he can't even admit to his failure to be impartial and fair minded in this trial?  This is not about "political correctness" but rather the more fundamental charter right to equality under the law and the duty of judges to be impartial.