except that Devos isn’t addressing that. Like, at core, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But what you’re actually arguing for is MORE regulations and guidelines. That is, you’re saying “this is a problem, we need strict constitutional mechanisms to handle this.”

I’m saying there are two issues.

1) the university and the state are different in function. Even in the case where there is no legally defined crime (because I agree with you that the rights of the accused need to be preserved) for the state, that doesn’t mean there is no issue that needs to be dealt with on a social or personal level by the university (and quite often there is). On the state level the accused has to be the focus. On the university level the accuser should be.

2) both my #1 statement here, and your policy are orthogonal to what Devos actually said, which was basically “blow the whole thing up.”

I mean, there’s an argument to be made that shoehorning this into Title IX which is actually about discrimination and not assault was the wrong thing to do anyway. But again, that’s not what she’s saying either.