I don’t expect the process to change, except at the margins.
I also don’t know when these policies were crafted, but their primary usage now, I believe, is to prosecute sexual misconduct. It’s hard to get a criminal conviction in a he-said she-said scenario, so schools took a “don’t just stand there, do something” approach and swing the pendulum way to the other side. This was partly fueled by an Obama admin Title IX “guidance” that was used as justification for unjust processes.
It’s worse than simply the evidentiary standard. These processes often stack the deck against the accused. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature. They feel they need to do something, anything, so if some innocents get swept up, tough.
FIRE has been fighting these sham courts for years. Here’s the problem. There are True Believers who are going to go ballistic on you if you propose tightening these processes. I was debating this once with a practicing attorney, and he was ready to rip my head off. His exact words: due process for rapists?!
It may seem common sense that what we are seeing is nonsensical. I think we’ll see a very noisy response to any attempt to change the process.
Especially now that the wielders of this hammer have decided that speech and academic work look a lot like nails.
It's a side effect of Title IX legislation. These judicial review boards on university campuses make these rules to give an alternative to young women who have been sexually assaulted (or claim to be sexually assaulted). When young women go to the Title IX officer, the officer can explain that they can go to the police or judicial review (which seems less intimidating). They also can do things like restorative justice.
Still, it's mostly about giving the person options and giving the university legal immunity by claiming they gave the young woman all options and let her, as an adult, decide how she wanted to proceed.
I apologize for seeming cynical about the process - Title IX officers I know want to help young people who are traumatized during their time in school. The problem is the university would LOVE for all sexual assault cases to go to judicial review, as it's private and confidential and won't put the university in a bad light.
So as you say, the bug (undue burden on the accused) is a feature. Stacking it in the way they do, allows judicial review to punish harshly without the burden of proof needed in a court of law. This is also often discussed with the accuser in a roundabout way, especially if they're reporting the rape, etc.. days or weeks after the fact.
The student will get justice (the accused suspended for semesters or forever), the accuser has little recourse to a university action sanctioned by students, faculty, and administration alike, and the university wins because a sexual assault doesn't become attached to the university in publications far and wide.
Because it would look incredibly odd to create one set of rules for sexual assault and another for assault (possible lawsuits, etc.), the university instead created a blanket coverage.
I find it funny when people say it's "woke ideology." Nope - it's high-priced lawyers explaining to the school what needs to happen to keep their institution as pristine as possible. It's jurisprudent PR. The fact it looks like it is advocating for victim rights is simply a nice side effect.
So you end up with the LeQuint Allens of the world being railroaded by a process built without him or his circumstances in mind. It was built for a different reason, and he's just secondary fallout. To admit the penalty was too harsh is to admit the system is fundamentally flawed.
