Chris Maverick I can’t accept your formulations as fair paraphrases of the positions involved. For example when you say:

“Basically Obama essentially made it policy that colleges and universities had to take accusations of sexual harassment seriously. That’s it. He set guidelines for investigating rape charges. Which, for the most part were basically: “you know… do it…” and also “and if you find that you have a rapist, do something about it.” That’s pretty much all he did.”

No. This grossly misrepresents what Obama did (or, relatedly, what colleges have done in efforts to avoid charges of Title IX violations due to campus sexual assaults).

Opponents of the action believe it has mandated (or perhaps just inevitably resulted in) an unjust system of kangaroo courts for sexual assault that violate rights of the accused. This is an issue that has been brewing for some time. This objection has been widely voiced, not just by fringe groups of “Men’s Rights” advocates. (For example, 24 members of the Harvard Law faculty signed a public letter urging Harvard to rethink its revised Sexual Harassment Policy, complaining that “Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.”)

“[DeVos] argued that the schools shouldn’t be addressing it at all. ”

This also seems completely unfair as a paraphrase. I simply can’t find any basis for it in the New York Times article you linked. All I can see is a pointer to a yet-undetermined change in regulations coming down the road.