Except there isn’t really a lot of evidence of that happening. No more under the Obama regulations than there was before. The regulations are there because of an underreporting (and in fact burying) problem. To say the “clearly pushed the schools to overreach” is just untrue. There’s actually still an underreporting problem. ARGUABLY there is a problem in that codes of conduct have moved towards an “explicit consent” model… but that was happening before Obama and I’d argue isn’t really “a problem”.
For it to be a “problem” you have to equate expulsion from the university (or honestly, other sanctions, because in most cases, expulsion doesn’t happen. There are other sanctions) as equivalent to a “conviction” and there really isn’t a lot of that. It’s what people are WORRIED about. But there’s not a lot of evidence of it.
Like, you can be expelled or many code of conduct violations. Grove City basically has rules against being gay. I know an individual who was expelled when it was discovered that he was paying for school with his side job as a gay porn star.
Where Michael Strauss has a point is that the federal govt didn’t tell Grove City to be anti gay porn. They are telling the schools to be anti-rape and how to determine if a rape has occurred. To argue that the DoE should revisit (and improve) those regulations is not the same as saying that the institutions are “forced to be judge and jury”. They’re just separate issues.
The question is what is the civil rights violation you are arguing? Are you arguing that the proceedings are unfairly implemented? That they should be improved? Maybe. Are you arguing that the institutions shouldn’t have them because they should be the sole purview of legal authorities? No! Because even if they are unfair, they’ve demonstrably done more good than harm. So the question is one of improvement not negation.