U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has unveiled a proposal to modify the rules on college campus for adjudicating sexual assault cases, citing inequities that erode the rights of the accused.

Many feminists are outraged, wary of obstacles sexual assault victims frequently face in gaining justice.

But prominent law professors in their ranks believe change is needed, including four at Harvard University who called the current procedures “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused” in a 2015 Boston Globe column.

The American Association of University Professors and the American College of Trial Lawyers agree.

The problem stems from the “Dear Colleague” letter issued without inviting comment by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights during the Obama administration. The agency enforces Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color or national origin. All colleges and universities accepting federal funds had to comply.

Its definition of “sexual harassment” was ridiculously broad, not only addressing “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and “requests for sexual favors,” but “other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

The remedies, as Emily Yoffe wrote in The Atlantic, were “unjust to men, infantilize women, and ultimately undermine the legitimacy of the fight against sexual violence.”

The guidelines stated guilt could be ascertained by a “preponderance of the evidence” — 50.1 percent — in what is essentially a criminal case. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that’s appropriate in civil cases involving discrimination, but “clear and convincing” is required when “particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake.”

A “single investigator” could be fact-finder, judge and jury.

Cross-examination was “strongly discourage(d)” to avoid “perpetuating a hostile environment.” However, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that was unconstitutional in September in a University of Michigan case.

In another Michigan case, freshman Drew Sterret was suspended in March 2012 after allowing a female acquaintance to sleep in his dorm room while her roommate had friends over. Instead of sleeping on the floor, as he anticipated, she got into bed with him and sex ensued.

That August he was accused of sexual misconduct and suspended. Sterret withdrew from school and sued. Three years later the truth emerged.

A friend of the alleged victim received a call from her during that summer stating she was “emotionally upset” because her mother had found her diary, which “contained descriptions of romantic and sexual experiences, drug use and drinking.” She told her mother she never gave Sterret consent. Her mother made her pursue a complaint.

Then there’s the issue of race.

Harvard University law professor Janet Halley wrote in a 2015 Harvard Law Review — citing “To Kill a Mockingbird” and the Emmett Till case — “American racial history is laced with vendetta-like scandals in which black men are accused of sexually assaulting white women” followed eventually by the revelation “that the accused men were not wrongdoers at all.”

A litany of such Title IX cases exists. One involves Kwadwo Bonsu, a University of Massachusetts student who had a sexual encounter initiated by a white female student following a fraternity party. She subsequently stated, “I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.”

Amherst police didn’t buy it, but a campus investigation did. Bonsu was disciplined and withdrew from UMass. After he sued, texts surfaced that the accuser sought a “good lie.” “(My friend) knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out.”

DeVos’ remedy, inconveniently released for comment between Thanksgiving and the New Year, would:

Redefine “sexual harassment” as “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity,” based on Supreme Court precedent.

Relieves colleges from weighing in on off-campus sexual assaults and harassment.

Allows both parties access to all evidence gathered by investigators.

Allow schools to choose a standard of evidence.

It’s a step forward, although Halley thinks the proposal has improvements and “disastrous” flaws. She’s critical that “severe and pervasive” in the definition narrows possible behavior, preferring “severe or pervasive.”

Sexual assaults and harassment are serious issues not only on college campuses but throughout society. Just as we could cite numerous instances where the accused in Title IX cases have been unfairly vilified, we could enumerate as many or more where justice has eluded actual victims. A balance needs to be struck.

We rarely find ourselves siding with Secretary DeVos. Indeed, framing these reforms as a “cost-saving” measure for colleges and school districts is exceedingly tone deaf. But the need to revisit the “Dear Colleague” guidelines is necessary and overdue.