Rant? Sorry if I frightened you. I'll try to be more delicate. Since you are having a hard time following, I'll spell it out.
You suggested that this is somehow, "like a civil trial". I pointed out it is not remotely like a civil trial. I chose OJ as an analogy because that is a case where the criminal process was not able to secure a guilty verdict, but the civil process was able to generate a positive result for the victim's families
while still maintaining the due process protections that the EOAA process denies. Since you're having a hard time following, I'll hit you over the head with it: Reggie Lynch was not prosecuted in the legal system, but the OJ experience tells us that remedies can still be had under a 'preponderance of evidence' standard while
still granting substantial due process protection.
I fully understand the University is not under any constitutional requirement to grant these due process protections, but that is a mealy-mouthed argument. Due process is not part of the court system because it was dictated so in the ten commandments. Our legal system guarantees the right to face accusers, jury of peers, etc., because they are
good ideas. We also require that records of court proceedings are kept, but it would be absurd to suggest that, say, journalists don't need to bother making records of interviews because, hey, that's 'a court thing'. Keeping records is simply a good idea on its own merits.
So honest question, what's the justification for excluding those good ideas here? Why is it somehow in the interest of justice to allow OJ's lawyers to subject the family members of murder victims to emotionally stressful depositions, but sexual assault victims need to be shielded? Why is it a good idea that OJ's lawyers were able to perform voir dire in selecting a jury, but in an EOAA proceeding you are stuck with the panel they self-selected? Etc., etc., etc.
No, the University is not obligated to provide these things. The point is they
should simply because they are good ideas in such serious circumstances. However, our hysteria has led to an environment, where universally held good ideas can be overlooked because
sexual assault. The notion that "sure, due process is important unless of course the issue is
really bad" should be frightening to everyone.
Regarding the racial aspect, since you seem (willfully?) ignorant of this dynamic, I'll leave you with this link to an article from the Atlantic titled "The Question of Race in Campus Sexual Assault Cases":
https://www.theatlantic.com/educati...f-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/