You understand that criminal law and tort law are distinctly separate, right I do, and I understand that the act is criminal not civil. Furthermore, I understand it is the gov't setting down the rules of court, either directly a gov't body for a public school or at the demands of the legislature through Title IX for others.

You are still not grasping this concept. What is at issue here is a matter of administrative law. It's not a crime because crimes don't exist in administrative law. The government is not setting down the rules of court. Courts have separate rules, and under the rules of court, these things don't and can't happens. They are setting down the rules of an administrative tribunal. Currently, there is no legal opposition to allowing these injustices. It is perfectly permissible.

The Connecticut legislature has nothing to do with Title IX. Title IX is a federal law.

Since anything said in civil case is usable as evidence in criminal cases, civil cases are on hold until after the completion of the criminal one.

You are incorrect that civil (and administrative) cases should be deferred until a criminal case is completed. It is quite permissible to conduct the administrative case first, and even to use the respondent's statements in the administrative case against him in a later criminal case. This is a very important issue because in order to defend oneself in the administrative case, one is compelled to forfeit one's constitutional right to remain silent. If the respondent asserts his right to remain silent, it is impossible to put forth a defense in the administrative case. The constitution guarantees two rights, due process, and the right not to be compelled to give evidence. In this unique circumstance, a person is forced to choose which of his rights to preserve and which will be destroyed. There is no reason to allow this, but we do. So while you are incorrect in saying this isn't allowed, you are correct in saying it shouldn't be allowed.

That the gov't is improperly using civil procedures is why it's wrong, not the exemption.

The problem is that the government disagrees. They think it's correct.