Philosophy Professor David Barnett has been notified of CU’s plans to fire him. At first blush, you might be tempted to conclude that Barnett had been charged with sexual assault or some other inappropriate relationship. Far from it.

No, what’s really happening is that CU is overreacting to the problem of sexual assault on campus, and is injuring innocent people in the process, Barnett being just one. But it isn’t just CU that’s overreacting; this phenomenon is playing out all across the country. The confluence of forces from Title IX, radical feminism, and the federal government’s investigation of over 80 universities has propelled the administration to make outrageous decisions.

The Office of Discrimination and Harassment (ODH) was ostensibly established to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment. But its existence has arguably been making matters worse.

First, it’s important to state that rape is a real problem on college campuses. And rapists should be severely prosecuted. But one of the major issues here is the distortion of the term “rape.” Sexual harassment definitions have become so skewed that many consensual sexual encounters are now considered rape. According to some, here’s how it goes: 1) If positive, unambiguous consent is not gained, then rape has occurred; 2) It is impossible for someone under the influence to give consent; and 3) If both parties are under the influence, it is the responsibility of the male to gain consent. Unfortunately, because of this ridiculous re-definition, I must make a distinction between a “rapist” and a “real rapist.”

The first problem is that the ODH doesn’t have the authority to convict the accused of a crime, but rather just to reprimand or expel them. This means that real rapists can go free, to rape again.

Second, the ODH does not employ due process. Barnett’s Notice of Claims states, “Under C.U.’s policies, ODH delivers reports concluding that a violation more likely than not has occurred to a secret, three-member panel that, proceeding entirely behind closed doors, decides whether to adopt the report and finding of guilt. The accused: does not receive a copy of, let alone a chance to respond to, the draft report; has no opportunity to see the evidence against him or her; has no right to a hearing at which he may confront witnesses against him or her or otherwise refute evidence; and has no right to appeal the finding of guilt.”

Third, the ODH uses a lowered evidentiary standard — “more likely than not” rather than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” — for determining guilt. CU’s ODH office director, Katherine Erwin, says that she struggles with that fact. “Because at the end of the day, it’s a very low standard and (the outcome of an investigation) has a huge impact on peoples’ lives.”

According to the New York Times, “At Harvard, 28 law professors recently condemned the university’s new sexual assault procedures for lacking ‘the most basic elements of fairness and due process’ and for being ‘overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.'”

You put all of that together and it explains how you can have a situation where a male student is found guilty of assault in a situation, where, according to the notice filed by Barnett, “prior to walking into the bedroom of [the male] on the evening in question, [the female] had been actively attempting to initiate sexual contact with various men in the house, and complaining that no one would have sex with her; [the female] walked into [the male’s] bedroom wearing only undergarments while he was asleep; and a couple hours after the allegedly unwelcome contact, [the female] returned to the house, alone (but leaving her boyfriend waiting in the car), and again attempted to initiate sexual contact with other men in the house.”

The university is so determined to protect its image and prove that it’s tough on sex crimes that it sets up a kangaroo court to render rulings that destroy people’s lives without due process of law. Then if someone like David Barnett dares to challenge the findings of the sham investigation, he’s fired.

Surely no reasonable person can consider this justice.

The trouble with a legal system that does not demand due process and is not committed to the truth is that it ruins reputations, encourages personal vendettas and blurs the line between decent people and actual criminals. I’m all for prosecuting criminals, especially when they assault women. I would love to reduce the prevalence of sexual assault. But when we convict innocent people using bogus definitions, corrupted processes and phony courts, we damage society and erode respect for the law.

Charlie Danaher lives in Boulder.