Odd for me to be in the position of defending DeVos, but I think miscarriages of justice can arise when education institutions have to turn into quasi-judicial entities in ways they are not prepared for, and that certainly seems to be a consideration. I don’t see why that should be a “straw man”.
In particular I find the rhetorical question “How do you come out in favor of the rights of the accused over the accuser in a rape case?” odd, or at least highly highly prejudicially formulated. Is it a matter of a conflict of rights at all to wonder whether the accused gets due process rights they would get in the criminal justice system? Should an accused have no rights when the accusation is “rape”? Should there be no protections against false accusations? That seems absurd. But then you have to face the question of whether the systems that have resulted do protect rights of the accused.
I have indded encountered the argument that the system *should* be biased in favor of the accuser, for various reasons. Proponents of such a view are willing to tolerate some innocent people getting punished as the price of supporting sexual assault victims where most accusations are not false. Deliberately allowing innocent people get punished in defense of a greater good may be morally OK according to utilitarianism, but is generally considered injustice.
Anyway I don’t see this position as indefensible. One might argue for example that universities should just turn sexual assault accusations over to the police and get out of the business of constructing parallel criminal justice systems with quasi-judicial proceedings.
Here is one longish piece on the subject if you’re interested.