And their burden to prove that the U of O denied their right to Constitutional Due process, including confrontation, representation by counsel, lack of pre-judgment by the deciding tribunal, lack of preference due to gender bias in favor of the victim, and all the other requirements in a real court of law as opposed to a process designed to comply with Title IX preferences in favor of alleged victims of sexual assault need only be proved by that same preponderance of evidence.  The victim can be completely one hundred per cent believed and vindicated.  But, If the U of O process which expelled them does not meet the Constitutional Due Process standards, they still win.  It's how convicted criminals get set free every day 'on a technicality'.   This isn't an appeal of their expulsion, this is a trial to see if their method of expulsion met minimum standards of justice or was a kangaroo court by its very nature, design and actual function.