Does the headline sound preposterous? Well, that’s exactly what will happen in response to this:

In a “Dear Colleague” letter sent to colleges and universities in April, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali announced new federal regulations publicly funded schools must employ to address allegations of sexual harassment and sexual violence.

The new standards most notably lower the burden of proof to prosecute.

“[I]n order for a school’s grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e., it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred),” Ali wrote.

FIRE responds:

“The Office for Civil Rights’ unilateral revision of campus codes across the country is unquestionably unjust. Students accused of serious crimes like rape should not be tried under the same standard of proof used for a parking ticket,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “OCR is proceeding from the fallacy that reducing protections for the accused will somehow increase justice. This is a dangerous and wrongheaded idea that will undermine the accuracy and reliability of the findings of campus courts.”

Indeed.

“Preponderance of evidence” standards are not used in criminal proceedings for a reason. And while these are not strictly speaking criminal preceedings, they have far more in common with such than the civil action cited by DoE as justification in their letter. Courts have specifically found that use of a preponderance of evidence standard can violate Due Process when the repercussions are serious enough, such as when states use it as a justification to deprive parents of custody of their children. What happens to a student “convicted” of sexual harassment in a college is not as bad as losing custody of a child, but it will have severe and lasting repercussions for that individual. Depriving a student of their education and good name should thus, at the least, require the more onerous of the civil tests, clear and convincing evidence.

In addition to lowering the standard of proof, DoE is taking the unusual stance that accusers should get multiple bites at the apple. They demand that any appeals process must allow both parties to appeal a verdict, rather than the typical practice of reserving such protections for defendants, so that they do not have to repeatedly defend themselves from the same charge:

OCR strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing. Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating, thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment. OCR also recommends that schools provide an appeals process. If a school provides for appeal of the findings or remedy, it must do so for both parties. Schools must maintain documentation of all proceedings, which may include written findings of facts, transcripts, or audio recordings.

They also wish to deny defendants (who they repeatedly refer to with the more inflammatory “alleged perpetrator”) their normal right to confront accusers (which they again tellingly call “alleged victims”).

This system clearly eschews the normal American disposition toward favoring the rights of the defendants, and instead stacks the deck in favor of the accusers. It’s the Mike Nifonging of campus sexual harassment enforcement, and should serve as a warning to any entity considering accepting federal dollars.