The University of Minnesota has delayed the adoption of a "yes means yes" consent policy after questions were raised about the consequences of such a policy.

U of M president Eric Kaler agreed to give members of the Board of Regents additional time to debate the policy. Regent Michael Hsu had raised concerns on Monday about whether the new policy would institute a bias against accused students.

"I think we need to make sure everyone knows what we're doing," Hsu said, as reported by the Star Tribune.

Kaler, however, stood by the policy, stating his belief that college campuses are facing a "crisis" of sexual assault.

This is a small victory for due process advocates, who argue that such consent policies broadly define what constitutes sexual assault and narrowly define consent so as to make nearly all sex illegal.

The policy has been passed as law in California and New York, and has been implemented at colleges and universities across the country. It requires that consent be "ongoing throughout a sexual activity" and that it can "be revoked at any time." It also states that "a lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent." Previous sexual activity "should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent." Loosely defined "incapacitation" due to drugs or alcohol also removes consent.

Such regulation of sexual activity has led some to question whether the writers of the policies have ever had sex. It has also produced roundly mocked novelty items like "consent contracts."

But beyond the questionable nature of the policy, there are its real, sometimes devastating consequences to consider. The policies assume guilt from the accusation and provide no due process rights to the accused. Essentially, an accusation can be all that's needed to brand someone a rapist for life. And in the current campus culture, there is no such thing as evidence for accused students.

U of M was right to delay this policy.