Shine the light on university's Office of Discrimination and Harassment

Article here. This piece is critical of Colorado University's Office of Discrimination and Harassment for its lack of transparency and for lowering the standard of proof for sexual assault cases from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence." Similar policies are found at other universities, primarily at the Obama administration's request. In my view, these policies institutionalize a "hostile environment" for men. Excerpt:

'We Coloradans love transparency in our public institutions. Take our sunshine laws — two members of any Colorado government body can't have coffee together to discuss the affairs of state without breaking the law. We wanna watch if they're gonna to talk about us. Boulderites' demand for a clear view into public decision making was obvious during the recent fuss over the 50-year contract to manage U.S. 36. Even though the negotiation was conducted within the law, we wanted to see it and have someone explain to us why it was such a good idea. Good for us. We expect our public institutions to be accountable to those of us they are supposed to be serving.

That is, of course, unless it involves charges of sexual harassment or discrimination at public universities. Then, public officials can make decisions that ruin peoples' lives with little or no accountability. Somehow, this part of American society, including our very own University of Colorado, has decided that, in this case, slanted justice behind closed doors is okay.
....
How and why have universities decided to treat harassment and discrimination charges so differently from what we all expect of American judicial institutions? One problem seems to be the desire of colleges to shield people who make accusations of sexual misbehavior. In most cases, this means shielding a woman accusing a man of sexual harassment from having to face her accuser, though Adler demonstrated that this is not a one-way street.

For example, the Guidelines for CU's Office of Discrimination and Harassment states the following:

"In CU-Boulder's process, the complainant and respondent will not be permitted to directly question each other and are not required to be present together at any point."

It's hard to see any justice system as fair when the accused cannot ask questions of the accuser — a simple concept enshrined in the Magna Carta that has since been a bedrock of our sense of justice. However, many universities, including ours, somehow see it differently.'