Or are those two things synonymous? Anyway, if you go to UCLA law school, here's the calibre of instruction you can expect (re: those now-expelled SAE racist punks), from Eugene Volokh, supposedly some kind of legal scholar:
Some people have suggested that the speech may be evidence of discriminatory decisionmaking by the fraternity in admitting members.
A mere "suggestion of discriminatory decision-making"? Well now, let's see what the evidence may suggest:
There will never be a [perjorative racial term for a fellow citizen entitled to equal protection of the laws] at SAE
There will never be a [oh dear, they said it again, those little scamps] at SAE
You can hang him from a tree
But he’ll never sign with me
There will never be a [third time's the charm, just some more frat hijinks, nothing to see here] at SAE.
Now, I don't know how many cases Mr. Volokh has actually tried (I'm guessing
none), but back in my days in the courtroom, that sort of thing would be called "probative evidence".
In fact, when you say that a person of another race can never pledge at your fraternity, and you would prefer instead that he be hung from a tree, there is no much more proof that you could ever ask for as to discriminatory intent.
So, for those going to UCLA Law right now, I suggest you ask for your money back and become dentists like Orly Taitz, because if the rest of the faculty can't tell probative evidence from their own butts, I think you're going to start off with a significantly defective understanding of the the law.