Both parties would have equal access to all the evidence that school investigators use to determine facts of the case, and a chance to appeal decisions. Elementary and secondary schools, which are also bound by Title IX, would not have to hold live hearings.

Though the rules were drafted over the last year, they were vetted in recent weeks by the White House and other administration agencies where emotions still ran hot over the fallout from the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

President Trump used due process arguments to rally conservatives when his Supreme Court nominee faced allegations of sexual assault, including an episode said to have occurred at Yale. Justice Kavanaugh was ultimately confirmed even after one accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, publicly aired her allegations before the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing that all sides considered painful.

“If this proposed rule goes into effect, every single campus Title IX process is going to replicate what happened in the Senate Judiciary Committee against Dr. Christine Blasey Ford,” said Jess Davidson, the interim executive director of End Rape on Campus.

Victims’ rights and due process advocates commended the department for including safeguards in the cross-examination requirement. The rules prohibit direct questioning of victims by the defendant, keeping in line with the Obama administration’s recommendation; require cross-examination to occur through a third-party, such as an adviser or lawyer; and include a “rape shield” protection that would keep a complainant’s sexual history off limits.

“There is no better way to test the truthfulness of an accusation than by questioning the accuser during a live hearing,” said Justin Dillon, a partner at the Washington-based law firm KaiserDillon, who has represented dozens of accused students. “If colleges are going to adjudicate what are essentially crimes, then accused students deserve to have the tools to defend themselves effectively.”

But victims’ advocates said the regulation undermined the intent of the sex discrimination law, which is to combat gender-specific discrimination and define sexual misconduct as a means of denying students access to an education.