Calls for diversity, inclusion, and equity in chemistry and science education have been ongoing. However, some faculty may find it difficult to challenge systemic inequities due to their pervasiveness. We posit that one working area for addressing systemic inequities in chemistry and science education is the removal of grading on a curve from our practices. Though this practice may be seen as traditional and "what people have always done", we offer nine critiques of this approach and how it may exacerbate systemic inequities rather than help students. These critiques challenge a variety of taken for granted assumptions about grading on a curve, including that it is more objective, is more efficient, and assists in controlling for grade inflation. Through our critiques, we hope to highlight that these assumptions are not entirely accurate and/or they act more as a sorting mechanism than as a way to evaluate learning. Using a brief history of grading in the United States, including some that speak to the evolution of grading on a curve, empirical evidence, and expert perspectives on diversity, inclusion, equity, and persistence, the aim of this paper is to use our critiques of the assumptions of grading on a curve and challenge the taken for granted beliefs about the practice. Our goal is to offer a strong argument against grading on a curve so that it becomes a working area for faculty to address systemic inequities by removing the practice from courses and adopting more informative and equitable approaches to learning and assessment.