Facts Do Matter: A Reply to Bagenstos
University of Virginia School of Law
Philip E. Tetlock
University of California, Berkeley - Organizational Behavior & Industrial Relations Group; University of Pennsylvania - Management Department
January 7, 2009
Hofstra Law Review, Forthcoming
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.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 27
Keywords: implicit bias, discrimination, antidiscrimination law
Date posted: January 8, 2009
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 2.688 seconds