There are so many reasons why people shouldn’t believe articles attempting to discredit Emma Sulkowicz.
1. The article linked is from Reason.com, and the original article is from The Daily Beast, which are gross conservative news sources.
2. The primary person the news reporter interviewed was the accused rapist
3. The rapist was accused by multiple victims who the writer of the article continually dismissed as lying or having it out for the rapist
4. The “evidence” the article provides is primarily testimony from the rapist, the man who helped defend the rapist, family members of the rapist, and old conversations victims had with the rapist on the internet (the latter of which is irrelevant to ascertaining guilt)
5. The article draws from many common tropes to discredit the victims: them acting in any positive way toward their attackers after the attack, them taking months to figure out they were abused or to report the abuse, their previous sex lives or expressions of sexuality, and them having a history of mental illness or a bad break up or other reason to be on bad terms with the attacker
5. A quick google would tell you that Cathy Young, the journalist behind all this, has been a critic of “anti-rape activism” and is responsible for multiple smear campaigns against rape victims and has many anti-feminist stances