No. The regulations… specifically the ones Michael Strauss quoted… specifically say that the proceedings should be for the university to investigate and the disputing parties should not cross examine each other. That’s what they say (good or bad).

The SUNY case had the the university telling the victim that if she wanted to do something she had to prosecute the case herself. That is they worked in direct opposition to the regulations. That’s not the regulations being broken (which they may or may not be) – that’s the university not following them.

Which means the entire anecdote is irrelevant to the case that Devos is making. It’s a rhetorical fallacy. One that I’d use in my class if it weren’t so patently ridiculous.