Social policy and federal and state legislation require the use of single cut scores when tests of cognitive ability, knowledge, or skills (CAKS) are used to make high-stakes assessment decisions, such as whether students or employees may be promoted. Rationales offered for the requirement are that cut scores provide objective standards and are fairer than using subjective criteria, such as racial group membership. It is argued that failure to consider threats to statistical conclusion validity, such as differences in variability between groups, obscures the differential impact of using a common cut score as the basis for highstakes decisions. Analyses of 40 Black and White samples revealed that (a) Whites might be considerably advantaged and Blacks might be considerably disadvantaged by the same cut score and (b) depending on where the cut score is set, decisions based on ratios of numbers of Whites numbers of Blacks might be fairer than use of CAKS test cut scores. Implications for assessment practice and social policy are discussed.