A few facts. This allegation was brought to the Somers Superintendent's attention via an anonymous letter, days after a situation that may now require counseling. Somers investigated the allegations "internally" and drew their conclusions, meaning they questioned the accusers to determine what happened, but not the accused.
What did the Somers coaching staff hear? It appears the Somers girls were unmonitored in a boys' locker room. Why? Why is the Somers Superintendent characterizing the behavior as "rude and disrespectful" when he has only heard one side of the story? Does innocent until proven guilty not apply in Somers? Did anyone in Somers question why it took nearly two weeks to disclose this information and doing it on the eve of the State Semifinals? Did anyone in Somers ever hear of the Duke lacrosse scandal?
I am not prejudging what happened in this situation, however, I think the Somers Superintendent could have conducted more than an internal investigation before potentially slandering high schoolers.
Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that only applies in a criminal case. It has no applicability elsewhere.
From a Yorktown point of view, be grateful that none of the Yorktown players spoke with staff at Somers. If they did, they may have made admissions confirming some or all of the allegations, and such could be used against them if charges are filed in criminal court. If I was the father of one of these Yorktown players, the last thing I would want to see happen is for my son to be interviewed by someone at Somers.
I don't quite understand the relevance of the Somers' girls being unmonitored in a boys locker room (assuming such to be true for purposes of discussion). That is kind of like blaming a rape victim because she wore a short skirt. Are you trying to say that absent direct adult monitoring, male varsity athletes are free to behave any way they choose?
As noted by another poster, Somers SD is not a law enforcement agency. All they can do is conduct an internal investigation. They are permitted to report their findings to the media in the fashion that they did. Slander is not applicable because the report is in writing. Libel would be applicable, but for a variety of reasons not worth getting into in this forum, the Somers SD would not be worried about such claims.
As to your question as to why the Somers SD is characterizing the behavior as "rude and disrespectful", I think the simplest answer is most likely true. They characterize it as such simply because their investigation concluded it to be such. If the reported behavior is rude and disrespectful than its rude and disrespectful - it doesn't matter who is spoken to.
The complaint about waiting two weeks is specious. If they would have reported it immediately, your complaint would have been "why report it right away - this is a rush to judgment - where is the investigation?"