Is there any prejudice against another man because of his skin?

A prejudice against another man because of the colour of his skin is a far worse, human weakness than a prejudice against the motorcar. None theless, to the extent that either represents a prejudgment of the issue being decided by a tribunal, it may, if it exists in fact, create a reasonable apprehension of bias. The existence of such a prejudice is, however, easy to allege, but difficult to find when the evidence of it consists of no more than the use of inappropriate language. There are few people who have not used inappropriate language in an unguarded moment or who have not, in anger or frustration, expressed a view not really held. Arbitrators are human beings with human frailties, like all of us. But they also have human strengths. Arbitrators, like judges, "are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances" (the language is that of Frankfurter, J., in United States v. Morgan (1940), 313 U.S. 409, at p. 421). I do not think that that assumption is displaced by proof of two chance remarks raising a suspicion, but not proof, of preju dice.