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

[bedstuy]

I think of preponderance of the evidence as the standard for civil cases, where the harm is monetary and the ultimate result is not a punishment per se.  The classic example is two people fighting over money in a contract, what is at stake is basically parallel for the two parties.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard when the accusation is that you're a "criminal" and your freedom is potentially on the line.   

Essentially, deciding between those standards requires that you look at both what is at stake if you get it wrong.  Wrongly labelling someone a rapist and destroying their reputation and future career is really serious business.  That isn't something I would do because I was 50.1% sure they were guilty.  Wrongly forcing someone to pay $1000 damages in a traffic accident is just of a different order of magnitude. 

So, I would go with a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence standard.  As much as rape is horrible and is a major problem in society, you can't throw away basic fairness and due process.  Fairness requires that you treat every accused person, not as a statistic or probably emblematic of the rape problem on college campuses, but as a human being entitled to a presumption of innocence and a fair process.