You can be sued in civil court for money. You're not held in prison or kicked out of school by government fiat in the meantime. And the damages (if any) are imposed after the court proceeding.
The exceptions are related to things like civil asset forfeiture, which are of questionable constitutionality and are similar to the rules we're discussing insofar as they are both worthy of contempt.
A university tribunal that operates as a result of federal requirements is government fiat, and a civil court is primarily concerned with awarding damages rather than imposing penalties. That they sometimes do other things is evidence more that the legal system is messy and flawed than that the exceptions should be the rule.
Except - as noted in article - none of the people involved are trained investigators, the starting position it to believe accusers (instead of being impartial), the accused are not allowed legal representation, and they're often under a tribunal-imposed gag order. There is nothing "just" in that situation.
The protections afforded to both the accused and the accuser are to provide safeguards for everyone involved.
