The SAT, LSAT, and Discrimination: Professor Gilmore Again Responds to Professor Subotnik

Abstract

On this very website, Touro Law Professor Dan Subotnik published a response to a piece that I wrote that will be published in a forthcoming edition of the University of Minnesota’s Journal of Law and Inequality. My piece continues the debate that Professor Subotnik and I have had for the past two years over whether standardized tests like the SAT and LSAT are reliable. I argue that they are not, and he argues that they are the best indicators for success in higher education…warts and all. In doing so, he makes some comments and generalizations that I found a little distasteful, and unjustifiably harsh, thus I replied accordingly.

Professor Subotnik’s response, on his SSRN page, called “Plain Talk About Testing and Race: A Reply to Professor Harvey Gilmore and a Law Review Publishing Drama,” attempts to portray himself as a poor, put upon, misunderstood victim of my alleged heavy-handed commentary. Don’t let that fool you. Dan Subotnik is a tenured law professor, an attorney, and certified public accountant. One certainly must have a thick skin to achieve the level of success that he has. Secondly, he has tangled with legal minds far more experienced and accomplished than I, a little ol’ college professor. So, I would caution anyone who reads his articles...and his latest missive against me in particular...not to be taken in by his claim of hurt feelings in our little discourse.

This story takes an interesting turn when the Journal of Law and Inequality invited Professor Subotnik to write a response to my piece, which I was happy to learn and I looked forward to reading his reply. Stunningly, the journal then rejected his rejoinder. The journal then asked me to restate some of my commentary.

As Professor Subotnik and I wholeheartedly agree, the most important part of any debate is to get the opposing viewpoints out and let people make their own assessments. Therefore, I have uploaded the original, unedited version of my article. This way, the readers of our respective pieces can objectively decide for themselves which one of us is right.