it would have been completely legitimate right up until the very last moment.

Correct. That's how the law works. If you are detained on suspicion of a crime, you are legitimately, lawfully detained right up until the very moment you are acquitted. Only then does detention become illegal. You don't get to say your detention prior to the verdict was rendered illegal by the verdict. Likewise, you were allowed to legitimately, legally possess LSD right up until the very moment it's prohibition was enacted. It cannot be said that if you possessed LSD before that time, the act was rendered a crime by a later legal decision. When criminal defendants did not have the right to a lawyer, it was legitimate and legal to deny them a lawyer right up until the moment the high court established that right. Persons convicted before that moment without a lawyer cannot claim that they were wrongfully convicted because their right to a lawyer was denied. The right didn't exist before that very last momen. Presently the State of California (and perhaps Connecticut soon) legitimately, legally says that students may be required to prove consent. Only at the moment a court decides otherwise will it be illegal to require a student to prove consent.

This doesn't strike you as tautological and counterproductive to any discussion?

No. While it is irrefutable, that's not because I have concealed any facts. There is only one material fact: the law currently permits this conduct, regardless of whether or not the law might forbid it in the future.

These policies (they're only law in California) are derived from a law (Title IX) that forbids policies which have a disparate impact on someone because of their gender -

This is factually incorrect. These policies are not derivatives of Title IX. Title IX is a federal law. These are state administrative rules. Title IX might (we won't know unless and until a court decides it is so) prohibit these rules. If the rules were derived from Title IX, then Title IX could not invalidate them. So far, no legislation or bench law concludes either that these rules have disparate impact, or that they Title IX forbids them for any reason. It is very uncertain, and I think unlikely, that this will happen. When a university reserves money for scholarships for women only, it undeniably has a disparate impact. The courts have said, however, that Title IX does not prohibit this disparate impact. What the courts have implied many times is that this protection is only for women. Courts have for generations, countless times, found that a disparate impact that negatively affects women is barred by Title IX, and concurrently that a disparate impact that negatively affects men is not barred. They reason that the purpose of Title IX is to aid women particularly. A similar line of reasoning allows minorities protection while denying protection to white students. Could this change? Yes, a court could rule that men are entitled to Title IX protection in cases like this. But that hasn't happened yet.

Moreover, these policies force students to make public statements without a lawyer and therefore forego their 5th amendment rights if and when the issue does land in a criminal court. Of course the student can try to prevent that by dropping out of school, but that would pose all sorts of problems under contract theory.

This is a separate and very important issue. Under all other circumstances that I am aware of, the jurisdiction of the administrative body only arises after the jurisdiction is the criminal courts is extinguished. This is considered a fundental right in all other circumstances. But courts and legislatures have allowed, and continue to allow it when university men are accused of sexual misconduct. In my opinion, this problem is more likely to get a remedy than the problem of being required to prove consent. But I'm not especially hopeful in either case.