While I understand the talking point, it is a complete misunderstanding of our legal system. Allow me to elaborate.
Innocent until proven guilty is a guarantee ONLY for criminal defendants under the American legal system. A defendant accused of a crime that faces a criminal punishment and being prosecuted by the state does not have to present a case to defend themselves. The burden of proof is solely placed on that of the state to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Civil proceedings, or disputes such as tort claims and contract disputes do not have a presumption of innocence. While a plaintiff is required to present their case against a defendant, if it is likely they will succeed, a defendant MUST rebut and present their side, or they will lose by default. Standard is much lower as well, as it is only a preponderance of the evidence standard.
There are hosts of other differences between criminal and civil proceedings. For the latter, no right to an attorney, no right to a trial by jury (also not a guarantee in all criminal cases), less rights to exculpatory evidence, no right to remain silent, etc.
Title IX proceedings, are actions brought by a university against a student or faculty member for violation of university rules. The penalty suffered is a civil penalty with the most extreme outcome being expulsion. There is no criminal penalty involved. Title IX proceedings are CIVIL proceedings and thus there is no guarantee of a lot of rights a criminal defendant would have. This does not mean a student that was expelled does not have recourse. They can sue for money damages if their expulsion was done wrongfully or can sue a public institution if the manner in which the proceedings were held violated their constitutional or statutory rights.
To correct the title, roll back of Obama era guidelines by Devos would NOT guarantee innocent until proven guilty, nor would it ever. The fight between Devos and Obama era guidelines is instead about degree: degree of protections for both students involved. Victims rights group say that Obama era guidelines have increased reporting and breaking down the stigma associated with reporting. Critics state that the guidelines went to far and created an increased incentive for universities to just believe the accuser out of fear of being in violation of Title IX. Thus, as stated earlier in this paragraph, the fight is about degree to balance out these points.
