what should be the burden of proof for campus justice system sexual assaults?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Accusation:

http://columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/10/01/columbia-university-marching-bands-sexual-assault-policy-stems-members-personal

The Community Standards Agreement treats all allegations of assault as truth, and stipulates that Bored members must take steps against any member reported as an alleged assailant.

“We don't care if something is not confirmed, we aren't interested in having alleged perpetrators in our group,” CUMB Head Manager Edith Lerner, BC ’16, said in an official statement. “We recognize that there could be problems with the policy, but we wanted it implement it [sic] right away so that our new members this year knew right off the bat what our values are and how serious we are about our community.”

These people can't possibly be serious. In what universe is this idea anything other than patently retarded? Basically they are making a rule that if you decide you don't like someone you can instantly destroy them at one's own whim. Wow.

Ugh. Why does everybody have to be so stupid about everything?

Yeah, this goes too far, but I have no problem with tertiary education institutions deciding to use something lower than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard when it come deciding whether to kick people out of student housing, to restrict access to extracurricular activities, or to simply expel.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay, organizations with independent executive authority like marching band can basically determine their own membership standards as much as they want, right? I see no problem for them to exclude a person based on the fact that other members of the organization don't feel comfortable around him due to allegations made against him. It's their own call.

So if they (or some small set of them, or even just one of them) doesn't feel comfortable around the new AltoSax player because they're Muslim, they should have the ability to exclude them?  That seems like a dangerous road to go down.

It's called freedom of association.  You can't have freedom of association without having the freedom to not associate, and that also includes the freedom to disassociate with those a group had formerly welcomed.  So yeah, freedom can be dangerous and it can cause problems, yet it is generally better than the alternative.