This entire debate began when I was asked by BBD "Who gets to decide that the comments are not racist?" I responded that "the person making the accusation has the burden of proof." Ph and BBD had great difficulty grasping that concept, so I provided an example where I thought the accusers had the burden of proving that the accused's actions were racist. I used the Georgetown Law example, as an example of where I think the burden was on the students (including the group calling for termination without investigation) and the school to demonstrate that what occurred was, in fact, racist. And my position has been that I do not believe that the evidence available to all of us establishes that the professors acted in a racist manner. That's it.
Along the way, I was accused of "not operating in good faith" by Ph, who ironically misstated my opinion in the same post. (#95) I corrected him as to what my entire point was: "My opinion is that if someone accuses another person of making racist speech, the accuser bears responsibility for establishing that it was actually racist. I don't mean literally in a court of law. I mean in a private interaction, to an employer, to a school board, whatever. It's not a controversial opinion. The accuser can always choose to think and gather information before making the accusation." Of course, that was after he asked me if I was suggesting that "racism isn't harmful?" (#69 #notnice)
So, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement that this was a "really weak case," when the case was brought up as an example of how burden of proof should work. Naturally, the discussion evolved from there, but that was its genesis.