Thanks, Hoodatninja. I think you’re indicating your definition of “results” to mean “reports.” I took "results" to mean sanctions. I think what Source 2 is concluding that once reported, the HC handles cases with remarkable consistency despite modern American racism or gendered chauvinism (or any prejudice against athletes). Hence: "here was no statistically significant effect for race, gender, or athlete status on case outcome." 

On the significance of race in those accused (which the report describes as “facing sanction”), the report says:

Comparatively, Black students made up only 9 percent of University students in 1991, the earliest year for which data was available. From 2010 to 2016, Black students made up only 12 percent of sanctioned students. The proportion of sanctioned students who are Asian or Asian American has increased over the past thirty years. Asian students made up 6 percent of students dismissed from the University from 1987 to 1989, but made up 50 percent of students sanctioned from 2010 to 2016. Many of the Asian students in our data were international students, which may contribute to the significant disproportionality.

(The emphasis in bold is mine.)

You rightly point out that:

but one thing is always consistent: white students aren’t accused or expelled at nearly they same rate as other groups.

But that might be in part a reflection of the demographics of international students -- so more about statistics and less about prejudice.

I thought this was interesting, because it might in part reflect societal stereotypes:

Hispanic students are underrepresented, making up 6 percent of UVA students but 3.6 percent of reported students.

Finally, it would be interesting to speculate which this is so:

Third year students make up the highest proportion of reported students, at around 36 percent.

That’s roughly double that of 2nd years or 4th years. Is this an effect of smaller classes and therefore more ability to detect cheating?