The 6th Amendment

Regarding the investigative story on The Kelly File with Megyn Kelly this week of the Amherst College male student who was expelled for an alleged rape, I question the process that denied the accused all protections afforded by the 6th Amendment to the Constitution that states: 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

A proceeding was conducted on the criminal matter of rape by the administration of Amherst College wherein the process was held in private and the accused was denied a public trial by an impartial jury, denied the opportunity to face his accuser, denied a process for calling witness in his favor, and denied the advice of counsel.  Amherst says it followed federal requirements.  But how can federal rules be in contravention to the Constitution?

Now the legal reasoning Amherst may have to skirt the Constitution is that the matter was not a criminal proceeding prosecuted by the government, but a private body where the punishment is expulsion and not imprisonment.  But the College claims its process is under the direction of the federal government so, in essence, the government circumvents the Constitution by commandeering private resources for political policy.  Further, if the crime was rape – a serious charge – why was this apparently not prosecuted by authorities?

I know not the guilt or innocence of the accused or accuser.  The point is the rules issued by the federal government are a grievous breech of civil rights that date back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and that are the essence of justice in a democracy and without which our republic cannot survive.  If established and constitutionally protected criminal justice can be relegated to back rooms to inflict retribution to favored political outcomes, then how is this any different than King John’s persecutions that led to the Magna Carta, or King George’s Intolerable Acts that led to the Revolutionary War?