We'll have to know more about what those reforms are to make such a judgement.

As I said in another comment, we have no reason to impugn hypothetical reforms if what we're asking is whether Horowitz has a legitimate reason to be concerned about moving backwards.

campus officials do not have a tendency to discredit reports of sexual violence.

While research hasn't been done on universities specifically, considering that there is no shortage of studies which find this problem in American court systems, I would be very surprised if this was also not a problem in universities.

That being said, to your specific points:

• Suspending campus activities in the wake of a high-profile media case cannot be taken as standard procedure when dealing with reports of sexual violence. That's also a temporary decision that does not indict an individual.
• How many of these lawsuits resulted in an overturning of a previous decision, or find misconduct on the part of investigating authorities? Can you cite any studies that suggest this is a systemic problem in universities?
• Taking accusations of sexual assault seriously is not the same thing as throwing out due process.

I’m worried that because of the inconsistencies in this story, this will challenge the precedent of believing a survivor... This belief is vital to improving reporting rates and maintaining a survivor’s health. It is very disappointing.

Believing the accuser does preclude us from talking about false accusations, because if we believe the accuser how can an accusation be false?

Again, this is a false dichotomy between taking reports of sexual violence seriously, and not granting due process to the accused. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

But again, all this is just going down the rabbit hole of university sexual violence policy. The point is that, no, Horowitz is not saying that we should throw out due process in handling reports of sexual violence.