Inferring and Explaining

137 theory is not about what happened but about the right course of action in the circumstances. Tere is a crucial diference between the two arguments that any devotee of inference to the best explanationwill note. Te second bit of rea- soning is not explanatory in the same way the first is. The smooching hypothesis explains the lipstick stain, the extended absence from the record hop, and the boyfriend’s lame excuse. The Earl-has-to-die hypothesis doesn’t even attempt to explain the pattern of abuse, the divorce, the restraining order, or the assault. Tis would seem to indicate that inference to the best explanation will be of little use in deciding whether Mary Anne and Wanda’s reasons were strong enough to justify the murder. For many years, I would have completely agreed with this sentiment. I would have insisted that IBE was useful to the police in investigating what happened to Earl or even in understanding the origins of the ladies’ beliefs about what had to be done but that a diferent kind of argument was needed to attempt to justify their action. Now, I’m not so sure. Tere are important similarities between the two stories. Connie’s story ofers an explanation of what happened. We deem her diagnosis reasonable because we judge her story as superior to alternative stories about what happened—the laundry detergent story or the revenge narrative. Although the normative rec- ommendation regarding Earl is not an explana- tion of any of the facts, the whole story does ofer an account of what the ladies did and why they think theywere normatively justifed. So it seems relevant to ask whether the Earl-has-to-die story is superior to other stories that friends, loved ones, counselors, lawyers, and the likewouldhave no doubt spunhad the ladies given thema chance. Geneva and Brown v. Board of Education Consider a story that might have been a synopsis of a movie—a mystery, a science-fction story, a satirical sci-f movie such as Get Out —or some- thing more literary like a short story or novel. Te black students, every one of them, had vanished on the way to school. Children who had lef home on foot never appeared. Buses that had pulled away from their last stop loaded with black children had arrived at schools empty, as had the cars driven by parents or car pools. Even parents taking young children by the hand for their frst day in kindergarten or in preschool had looked down and found their hands empty, the children suddenly gone. 12 But the quote actually comes from a scholarly discussion of race, law, and the famous Brown v. Board of Education case. Why would a respected constitutional scholar tell such a crazy story? Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic diagnose three related reasons that critical race theorists employ legal narrative. Tey allow for an “Open- ing [of ] a Window onto Ignored or Alternative Realities.” 13 In addition, legal storytelling gives scholars a way of “Counterstorytelling.” 14 And fnally, they provide a “Cure for Silencing.” 15 Tese are all important and noble academic undertakings. But I fear Delgado and Stefancic have lefout themost obvious and important rea- son Derrick Bell constructs his stories. He does not simply desire to give voice to perspectives that have been silenced nor present an alterna- tive reality nor even, though this gets closer to his underlying motivation, does he modestly present a counterstory to the received interpre- tation of Brown v. Board of Education . I take him to eVIdenCe, exPlanatIon, and narratIVe