Steph, I am wondering if you read all 19 single-spaced pages of this. I can’t claim to have read it all myself, but just skimming makes clear there are a LOT of quite specific procedural requirements laid out.
From my other acquaintance with this issue, the most widely cited item of concern is the demand that colleges MUST employ a lower standard of proof than is used in criminal trials (preponderance of evidence vs proof beyond reasonable doubt). That is the number one thing that allows innocent students to suffer the stigma of being expelled and tarred for life as rapists based on murky facts (with lots of alcohol consumed by all parties). I gather (from the Shulevitz piece above), the guidelines also prohibit cross-examination of witnesses, something standard in the criminal justice system. I am not sure what else.
Remember, this is a very long-running controversy with many people taking similar positions to De Vos (see articles linked above). It strikes me as highly reasonable. Mav’s emotion-laden rant misrepresents the issues and strikes me as kind of worthless as argumentation.