This essay replies to critics of our earlier article reviewing efforts to apply psychological research on implicit bias to antidiscrimination law. We document that we do not hold the normative position ascribed to us by our leading critic, Professor Bagenstos, and that he misconstrued our scientific arguments and has accepted at face value empirically unsubstantiated claims about the power of millisecond-reaction-time measures to predict behavior in workplaces. Scholars, judges, regulators, and legislators who seek to combat the root causes of inequality effectively should attend carefully to the disputes surrounding the empirical assessment and theoretical modeling of implicit bias and consider the limits of existing data before using implicit bias research for theoretical, litigation or policy purposes.
Mitchell, Gregory and Tetlock, Phillip E.
"Facts Do Matter: A Reply to Bagenstos,"
Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 37:
3, Article 3.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol37/iss3/3