By dismissing Prof. Ludlow’s complaints, the court effectively asserted a conditional: EVEN IF every statement in the plaintiff’s complaint is true, the case is not one a court has the power to deal with. So, if Prof. Ludlow’s complaint says X, the court’s opinion will be written as if X were true, even though no evidence regarding the truth or falsity of his claims has been considered.
As members of the profession, we should keep this in mind: the court considered no evidence regarding the truth or falsity of any of Prof. Ludlow’s claims about either Prof. Lackey or [PhD student]. Nothing in the court’s opinion constitutes evidence for or against Prof. Ludlow’s claims about our colleagues.
Feminist Philosophers 
(I also made this comment at the Daily Nous.)
By dismissing Prof. Ludlow’s complaints, the court effectively asserted a conditional: EVEN IF every statement in the plaintiff’s complaint is true, the case is not one a court has the power to deal with. So, if Prof. Ludlow’s complaint says X, the court’s opinion will be written as if X were true, even though no evidence regarding the truth or falsity of his claims has been considered.
As members of the profession, we should keep this in mind: the court considered no evidence regarding the truth or falsity of any of Prof. Ludlow’s claims about either Prof. Lackey or [PhD student]. Nothing in the court’s opinion constitutes evidence for or against Prof. Ludlow’s claims about our colleagues.