This response seems to miss the point. Sure colleges are free to institute fairer procedures. But as things stand they are also free to institute unfair procedures (“kangaroo courts”). Do you mean the guidelines should be changed to PROHIBIT absurd procdedures such as the one in that SUNY case (the one which, I can’t help noticing, Mav confidently but completely wrongly denied could ever happen under Title IX requirements?) Then you would be with DeVos, not against her, in claiming the requirements should be changed to avoid absurdities like this.
The position is that that the pressure to comply with Title IX as interpreted has led educational institutions to implement a system of amateur-hour quasi-judicial procedures adjudicating accusations of sexual assault. This has led to a broken system which in many cases is highly biased and fails requirments of basic fairness. In many cases it violates the rights of the accused, leading to some absurd results (see the Reason site’s list of cases). Results are frequently subject to further lawsuits which colleges often lose, thus throwing out results and failing victims. Some change is needed to get out of this absurdity.
I concede there is some unfairness in laying this *all* to Obama-era regulations. Sure that is just something Republicans do. Some of the brokenness stems from larger movements (e.g. the push for affirmative consent policies) which lead colleges to adopt stronger policies favoring accusers than actually required.
But remember, DeVos has no power to change law at all –the only thing she can do is alter regulations.
I continue to believe Devos position is very reasonable and defensible. It is very widely held, as I tried to point out, certainly among conservative sources, but please also check out pieces I cited which were published in more liberal-leaning publications, such as those by Emily Yoffe if you want more background about where DeVos is coming from.