Last summer Harvard University adopted a new policy for how to handle charges of sexual harassment, following the demands of the U.S. Department of Education. As at most schools, the new policy is grotesquely slanted in favor of accusers and against the accused. That is not surprising. With the government using the club of possible loss of federal funding, most schools feel they have no choice but to knuckle under. And, of course, on many, perhaps most, college campuses uber-feminist misandry is as thick as fog.

But a strange thing has happened at Harvard. It seems that 28 members of the faculty at the Harvard Law School think that due process and basic fairness have a place in academia after all.

They have published an op-ed in today’s Boston Globe: “As members of the faculty of Harvard Law School, we write to voice our strong objections to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures imposed by the central university administration and the Corporation on all parts of the university, including the law school.” Among their objections are:

Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:

■ The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing.

■ The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.

■ The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation.

They also fault “Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, …” In other words, they’re both drunk, but she gets a pass and he gets hanged

It will be most interesting to see how this plays out. My guess is that the powers-that-be at Harvard, such as President Drew Faust, will respond with “thanks for your input,” and drop the subject.