Can't quite read it? It's on page 11 of
UCOP has released new procedures for sexual harassment cases for faculty, staff, and students. As yours truly reads it, defendants are allowed to have an adviser (e.g., lawyer) at hearings. It's not clear what role the adviser can play in the process from the documents, however. Another problematic element for Senate members with regard to due process comes after the Title IX officer has made a decision. There is then a hearing with the chancellor or chancellor's representative. In part, the hearing is defined as follows:
IV. A. Opportunity to Respond
The Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee will offer the complainant and the respondent an opportunity to respond to the notice of investigation outcome and accompanying investigation report, either through an in-person meeting with the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee, a written statement to the Chancellor or Chancellor’s designee, or both.
The purpose of this response is not to challenge the factual findings in the Title IX investigation report or present new evidence, but to provide the complainant and the respondent with an opportunity to express their perspectives and address what outcome they wish to see.
Source: Page 6 of http://sexualviolence.universityofcalifornia.edu/files/documents/Faculty-SVSH-Investigation-and-Adjudication-Framework-and-Flowcharts.062917.pdf
Since the "factual findings" and "evidence" are the heart of any decision, it would seem appropriate, at any stage of the process, to point to new evidence, facts, etc.
Of course, much depends on how these procedures work in practice as opposed to what is on paper. The basic documents are at:
For Senate & Non-Senate faculty:
It might be worth stating the obvious: The procedure for dealing with sexual harassment under Title IX is both sensitive and controversial. There have been court cases regarding various universities in which campus decisions have been reversed on due process grounds. Moreover, with the new Trump administration in charge of the Dept. of Education, there will undoubtedly be more controversy to come. So releasing new procedures on June 29 - the tail end of the academic year when many folks who might otherwise react are away - seems not the best timing. This furtive timing is especially questionable since the basic document states:
The new procedures for faculty and staff must be implemented at all UC locations no later than September 1.