I just saw Dahlia Lithwick on C-SPAN discussing the Ricci decision, and she skipped carefully around the questions at the heart of the case. The case is, indeed, a minefield for commentators and reporters who want to appear objective and non-partisan. (She spoke better than Nina Totenberg, it should be said, who appeared uncomfortable on TV last night and likewise avoided discussing the real issues, downplaying any real significance to the decision.)

Lithwick did mention Alito’s concurrence as a remarkable action, however, one that directly challenges the factual nature of Ginsburg’s dissent. One of the striking things about it is that Alito takes the time to detail the acts, interests, and personalities of people in New Haven associated with the case. He mentions meetings, e-mails, travels, behind-closed-doors decisions, and statements by New Haven officials and Reverend Kimber.

It’s a sordid narrative, and some wonder why Alito offers it.

The reason is simple. Because in race-based decisionmaking in the United States, we often have a wide divergence of the high ideals of race-based policy from the actual procedures in the implementation of them. And while most Americans more or less agree on the ideals of equality, the evils of prejudice, and the desirability of proportionate representation of different groups, they recoil when they hear about tactics sometimes used to reach them, for instance, in this episode.