A persistent conflict between assessment professionals and faculty members in the humanities seems to focus inevitably on resistance to the concept of interrater reliability. While humanities faculty are often willing to engage in course-embedded assessment that uses some type of scoring rubric, when the demand for agreement in scoring is interjected into the discussion, the rub is always just beneath the surface and bubbles up in a variety of ways. A greater understanding of the issues on both sides is needed. In this article, the author examines the issue from the humanist's perspective, then reverses the argument to present the perspective of the assessment practitioner.