Mandatory sentencing for college infractions is violation of due process

Article here. Excerpt:

'How many young men will be improperly convicted of sexual assault because amateur boards were more sympathetic to the young woman in a "he said/she said" case? College disciplinary boards often only need a victim to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence, which is far less stringent than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard needed at a criminal trial. Female accusers may often be able to achieve preponderance of the evidence simply through innate sympathy toward women.

Worsening this unfair system of justice is a new bill in California, which would mandate minimum suspensions of two years for anyone found guilty of rape by campus disciplinary boards. Automatically, anyone found guilty under the unfairly weak standard of "preponderance of the evidence" by a board of amateurs would be kicked out of college for at least two years. Given the high cost of tuition and the likelihood of dropping out after time away from school, young men who are suspended will forfeit a considerable amount of current and future property.

Due process was created to prevent the forced forfeiture of such property. Supporters of campus disciplinary boards argue that, since defendants do not risk losing their freedom [by going to prison], they have less need for due process. But, given the high cost of college, it is silly to assert that young men who are suspended or expelled are not being deprived of their property. If you are to nullify someone's $40,000 investment in their education, you must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'