institutions should consider such allegations under the "more likely than not" standard of evidence, rather than the stricter "clear and convincing" standard that some now use.
Why would the OCR do that?
Cui bono?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/sexual-h...
http://title-ix.blogspot.com/2011/04/commentary-on-yale-and-...
Looked at another way, the author of the WSJ piece, a woman, a lawyer, a feminist, tells you that underlying this is a feminist demand. What knowledge do you have to disagree with her? Is it possible your "reasonable skepticism" might actually be a "ignorance of the issue at hand and its history"? (BTW, I do agree she could have been more explicit in making the connections.)