When an appeals court told the University of Michigan last year that it must allow cross-examination in sexual-misconduct proceedings, the judges gave the taxpayer-funded institution two options. It could let the student parties cross-examine each other, which would be cheaper but could subject students to “further harm or harassment.” Or it could let their “agents” handle cross-examination, most likely lawyers, and either pay for representation itself or let students hire their own lawyers. The university chose the cheaper option. UMich is facing blowback from both pro-accuser and due-process advocates for implementing an interim policy that is considered even worse than the process struck down by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Source: University of Michigan under fire for requiring students to cross-examine each other in campus rape cases