I don't mind a rape claim in a university setting using preponderance of evidence. Afterall, we're not talking about judges and lawyers here - we're talking about some person hired to handle these matters investigating them. What credentials they have to do so is completely unknown to me, but let's be clear that we're not talking about a court here. We're talking about a tribunal appointed by a college that will effectively be assuming the accused is guilty. There are high stakes, for a variety of reasons, for universities to appear to be tough in these situations. In some ways that's good, but it is much like other "tough on crime" methods in that it likely hangs justice out to dry in the name of appearances. Crako said it well, we can continue to act with a presumption of innocence on the accused. What we need is to make sure the accuser is never put on trial and we review real evidence. That's the real issue.