to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendants’ deliberate indifference, Plaintiffs are entitled to their day in court on their Title VI and § 1983 claims whether the deliberate indifference is borne of deliberate animus or the more insidious poison of social conditioning. Here, plaintiffs’ proof is more than sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact, especially if we consider the ephemeral nature of the racially caused deliberate indifference they must prove. A. The Summary Judgment Standard Has Been Ignored I reiterate that a court may not “weigh the disputed evidence and decide which is more probative,” when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Lawrence v. National Westminster Bank New Jersey, 98 F.3d 61, 67 (3d Cir.1996) (internal citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, courts may not “make credibility
holding that the district court erred in ruling that a plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to survive summary judgment on its discrimination claim where the district court had simply discounted plaintiffs admissible evidence as less probative than defendants holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding without discussing the plaintiffs burden of persuasion that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment holding that the court was precluded from considering whether the district court had abused its discretion in ruling on defendants summary judgment motion before allowing plaintiff to conduct requested discovery where the plaintiff had not filed an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f and stating that  when a party does not avail himself of relief under rule 56f it is generally not an abuse of discretion for the district court to rule on the motion for summary judgment  citation omitted holding district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on summary judgment motion where inter alia plaintiff had been given repeated notices court intended to rule on motion and it was plaintiffs burden to rebut defendants evidence