[goldstategop]

Well I am opposed to preferences AND quotas. But that's me, I have a preference for setting it straight. Its all hair-splitting to me but then again I am a layman, not a lawyer. You should read Rabelais nonsenical language in Gargantua & Pantagruel. Things haven't changed that much among the pendants since the Middle Ages.

[hchutch]

The way I see it, the buyrden of proof is rightly placed on the accusers in these cases.

In the former case, the law school, it was kinda hard to lay down the proof that it was discriminatory. It was, in essence, a judgement call on the part of the admissions folks, and I don't think that ought to be taken away. There are thing that might not show up in test scores or GPAs.

The latter case, on the other hand, is one where the accussers met the burden of proof that it was pretty f***ing blatant discrimination. I would insist on that proof no matter what race the accusers are. If the burden of proof is NOT met beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must acquit.