Yeah, but you’re assuming an order of operations that to be in line with a perfect world that you imagine it. It’s far more likely to be the opposite way.
As you’re well aware, rape is super underreported in general. For obvious reasons. And clearly it involves a lot of trauma.
In the case where a victim is raped and immediately goes to the police, then sure… the legal system can jump into play.
But often, that’s not what happens. What happens is the victim is embarrassed and hurt and maybe says nothing. Or if they get the courage to say something, goes to a trusted authority figure rather than an unknown law enforcement figure. So they go to a teacher, advisor, RA, dean, whatever.
The reason Obama made the changes is that often that authority figure would tell the victim “oh, well are you sure that’s what happened? Maybe we should think this through. We’d hate to cause a lot of trouble over nothing.” Sometimes this is maybe to protect the victim from further trouble. Often it was to protect the school from a bad rep. But in any case, it short circuits the very thing you’re asking for. Because it KEEPS the report from ever getting to the legal authorities.
So that’s one issue.
The other is that again, there’s no interference. There’s no reason a person can’t be investigated by two bodies at the same time with different standards. That’s why there’s the preponderance of evidence rather than the reasonable doubt difference. There’s different issues at play for criminal proceeding vs. university code of conduct. They’re not equal.
Assume this case: Frat party happens. People get drunk. Susan is black out wasted. Susan wakes up in Bob’s bed the next morning with a naked Bob. Bob says “oh that was some great sex last night. Holy shit. You rocked my world.” Susan says “who the fuck are you? Are you that guy in my physics class! I don’t even know you’re name. I never would have slept with you!” Susan then goes and reports it as a rape.
So two things are of issue here. Was there a legal rape? And did Bob violate university code of conduct.
The LEGAL proceedings might very well argue that it’s not clear “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Bob knew that Susan was intoxicated beyond her ability to offer informed consent. Bob does not go to jail. The SCHOOL proceedings on the other hand, might find that Bob should understand that the university does not consider it appropriate to have sex with a stranger you met at a party when alcohol is involved. Bob gets expelled.
MAYBE, you might argue that this is unfair. Sexist even. You might argue that Bob and Susan are both drunk, both impaired, and one’s has no more responsibility than the other. There are personal moral decisions to be made there.
BUT no matter what, the university is still well within its rights (and I’d say responsibilities) to act on such things in some way. And in order to do that, they need to investigate. And they need to do so immediately and outside of the purview of the legal investigation because it is unreasonable to expect that life is going to proceed as normal for Susan or Bob or any student that happens to encounter them. The legal investigation and trial could take months, or even years. We can’t just have the two of them sitting in physics like nothing happened.