I think you mean 'implies' rather than 'infers'. I'm not a big fan of the 'microaggression' concept (which seems to be an analytical tool that's been prematurely operationalized), but it's not hard to conceive of a person in a position of academic or social authority who habitually dunks on some outgroup in such a way that its members are scared to complain openly.

I picked that example because I think it's notable that FSU didn't champion the idea of anonymous dissent and push for a more transparent but maximally inclusive solution; it seems they were OK with a particular kind of speech being shut down. Paypal's lack of transparency about why they're being rejected as customers is a bad thing, but then again Paypal is notorious for unilateralism and consumer hostility, as flea-market traders on eBay have long grumbled.

I might be more sympathetic if this were an org with a long and nuanced history of arguing for a general set of values like the EFF (with whom I don't agree on every topic, but whose independence and consistency are well established). However my first impression of the FSU is that it's a more partial organization than its branding suggests.

i would have you explain your sentence because it describes the concept of "reporting" as making an inference and i am no longer clear about how to interpret the words structurally

i tentatively take it to mean that you did the inference, and it's punishment by the university, but i am not sure, because the mechanism by which the university affects paypal is unclear

No, university policies produce punishment or non-punishment. Reporting is speech. Would you prefer that they report publicly and drag people into the court of public opinion without an investigation instead? Isn't that Cancel Culture?