Throwaway because I wouldn't want to jeopardize my own case in any way -

Short version: I was falsely accused of sexual assault at my college; their system is two-tiered - one tier to determine if an accusation has merit to warrant a judicial hearing, and a second tier consisting of that judicial hearing and possible sanctioning board.

I'm at the stage where they have decided to move forward with a judicial hearing, but prior to an actual judicial hearing.

When I look at the evidence in the case, on my side I have documented evidence of what the accuser said the next day (about how much fun they had/that they enjoyed being with me); versus (4 months later) their new account of events and the fact that their friends say they did see marks on the accuser's arms (even though at the time the accuser never said anything about them at the time.

They justify the documented things said via social media by saying that they didn't want to believe that someone would do something like that to them, and that they wanted to "protect our friendship".

I think there's something to be said for the fact that regardless of who you believe, the person either lied directly to me the next day, or is lying (or invented memories) some several months later. (It's not like even the accuser's witnesses say that she said anything about it at the time.)

So I await execution or salvation by kangaroo court. And in no way would it have reached this point were it not for the bizarre and unjust application of the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

But all of that, shitty and unjust though it may be, isn't of direct importance to all of you. What is important, is the continued use and interpretation of the dear colleague letter in this fashion. When I got down to reading it - I was genuinely shocked at the language used to justify it:

The supreme court has applied a preponderance of the evidence standard in civil litigation involving discrimination under title VII of the Civil Rights Act [...] Like Title IX, Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. OCR also uses a preponderance of the evidence standard when it resolves complaints against recipients [of Title IX complaints]. For instance, OCR's Case Processing Manual requires that a noncompliance [with Title IX] determination be supported by the preponderance of the evidence when resolving alleagtions of discrimination under all the statuses enforced by OCR, including Title IX. OCR also uses a preponderance of the evidence standard in its fund termination administrative hearings. Thus, in order for a school's grievance procedures to be consistent with Title IX standards, the school must use a preponderance of the evidence standard. [...] Grievance procedures that use this higher standard are inconsistent with the standard of proof established for violations of the civil rights laws, and are thus not equitable under title IX."

Er, what? Is their logic really that the Supreme Court uses preponderance to determine whether or not someone has been discriminated against (on the basis of their gender/race/other protected class) - and therefore we should (must) use preponderance in cases of sexual misconduct? This has to be some joke.

I know colleges are too afraid (of losing, of feminists, of lots of things) to challenge this in court, but come on! There are people's lives at stake, and we're dealing out "justice" by a standard of 50.000001%. I was disturbed before I was on the receiving end of it, but now, I can't stop thinking about it.

How do we undo this travesty? Do we have any legal scholars who would like to weigh in? Also, I'll take advice on my situation if you have it.

Link to Dear Colleague April 4 Letter