The statement in PaleBlueMoonlight’s link looks to me to be (perhaps deliberately) unclear.
Reading carefully, I suspect the reality is following a standard pattern: women’s rights activists use non-violent methods of action; transactivists respond with more destructive actions.
Rather than offering a clear statement, the vice chancellor says those damaging property were writing graffiti “pertaining to trans issues”.
It is thus unclear which side is guilty of this destructive behaviour, but when he throws in a paragraph about “trans people” having serious concerns for their safety, to the casual reader, that very much carries an implication that those acting destructively and those causing this concern are one and the same.
Doubtless, if faced with this being pointed out, he would say that he intended to state that such behaviour was not justified, even in the face of provocation, but I’m not sure it’s an innocent error.
But it follows that, if the article in the first post was based on his statement, the journalist might well have believed what she wrote actually reflected what he said.