The focus is rescinding the ban, but they acknowledge that the way to do so is review their actions and set up safeguards to prevent similar things from happening. There's too much bureaucracy involved for them to already publicly review their actions.
Why else would they take the ban extremely seriously and take the actions mentioned? I guess it's possible they're worried about the ban spreading, but rescinding the ban seems more likely.
Or, maybe they don't want to be in a position where they are getting banned just in general? Like, maybe you don't mind getting banned from a specific bar, but you do mind being the kind of person that is getting banned from bars.
Of course, no PR person with anything would allow such a thing into their statements. The UMN is far too big to allow someone without some competency in PR.
