And yet, they can.

Nonsense like paraphrasing the plain terms of the Code? Sure.

You said what they were doing was douchey, but legal. I pointed out that one of the things of which they are repeatedly accused is date rape, which is rape, which is illegal.

I did not miss that part. My argument is that they can and they ought to. Your argument was that they could not. Your argument is incorrect. Your other argument, that they ought not, is arguable.

"Isn't going to," maybe, because they don't feel it's in their interest to.

Sigh. Not according to American University's Code of Conduct.

Also, providing alcohol to 19-year-olds is not legal. Also, drunk driving. Also, overloading a car with passengers.

Date rape is not legal, first of all.

Witness testimony and school email accounts, for one. The emails have no expectation of privacy as against the school, who owns the accounts.

They're represented (usually) by student advocates in front of a panel of students, and sometimes faculty (as I've now said three times). Which is better than your employer will give you, by the way.

It's not about your expectations. It's about a university ignoring what appears to be an ongoing disciplinary matter under the terms of its own code of conduct.

Yes, because that is a thing that actually has happened.

No one's talking about searches. No one's saying these guys are committing a violation by the mere fact of their association with one another. Those are straw men.

Now we're getting into the weeds. The larger point remains: the student contracted with the university to obey a code of conduct. Said code applies during the student's association with the university. Much as an employer can fire an employee for a DUI where that employee's offense will reflect badly on the…

"even in a contract one cannot give up one's rights"

So eyewitness testimony, where deemed credible, is insufficient to you? How do you think criminal cases are proven? Magic? Psychics? Testimony and evidence.

Or causes bad publicity for your employer, or simply makes your employer question your character.

It's not on shaky ground at all. It's a contract between the school and the student, and it's a condition of enrollment. "Guilt," here, simply means "whether or not a university-level punishment is appropriate."

The students agreed to comport themselves in a certain way when they joined the university. That agreement does not stop at the classroom door, that's the Code of Conduct the university promulgated and to which the students are beholden. If the students feel that's unfair, they are free to not pursue their studies…

I understood you fine, and yes, the university's job is not to prevent anything.