I wish I were able to take his characterization of his motivations at face value, but I haven't been able to get there . . .

But even if I could, this seems to be a classic example of someone who feels something should be done another way but takes a totally wrong-headed approach about how to "help" make it happen. It boggles my mind that someone would think that writing something as sensationalistic (and one-sided) as his article turned out to be and getting it published would be a good way to effect needed change, rather than just slamming shut any possible way to have a real positive effect by presenting evidence in a persuasive way directly to people who are actually in a position to make changes.

In addition to the other things that have been cited about the negative fallout, you should check out the way this was picked up in the on-line religious news blogosphere starting with the article at Religion Dispatches (a liberal-leaning site about the intersection of religion and politics) by Joanna Brooks (whose own "tag-line" pretty well prepares you to understand her outlook on most things Mormon that she chooses to write about, who is not above a bit of "ark steadying" herself, and who had already tried to "warn" people about the "dark side" of all the good publicity arising out of Brandon Davies' suspension [she links to her own earlier post in the post linked here]):

BYU Honor Code Used to Harass Black Atheletes

I know that this particular rehashing of the Deadspin article has been picked up in more than a few places.

Those who think that casting situations in the most negative light possible in a public forum (large or small) will lead to positive outcomes are naive at best, or just plain kidding themselves even if they don't have larger ulterior motives.