After an introduction and explanation of bias in Part I, Part II of this article explores the issue of bias and the underlying factors that configure bias, such as attitude, stereotype, and prejudice. Part II also examines the two principal types of bias, explicit bias and implicit bias, and defines common subsets of bias, such as gender bias. Part III presents implicit bias as an unconscious, utilitarian, and neuroscientific mechanism. Part III examines the neuroscience of decision-making and the neural structures that influence and regulate decision-making processes. Part III also discusses emotion as an underpinning to decision-making and the role of emotion in implicit bias. Furthermore, the amygdala in the brain will be examined regarding its critical role in mediating emotion, fear, and the generation of implicit bias. Part IV discusses the individualized or personal factors that influence bias. This section also illustrates systematic factors that may elicit bias, such as diminished resources in administrative tribunals. Part V addresses the administrative law judiciary’s susceptibility to bias due to systemic factors, such as resource allocation. This section also discusses the typical resource allocation in the administrative law judiciary and how diminished resources affect decision-making and fuel bias. Section V also presents a Connecticut case study examining the lived experiences of judges as an empirical basis to support the nexus between resource allocation and bias. Part VI introduces the 4-D deflate, debias, defend, and data approach as a paradigm for mitigating bias, along with a description of practical methods of mitigating bias in the judiciary. Part VII concludes this article by underscoring the need for bias mitigation and impartial administrative hearings.
All Cases Matter: Mitigating Bias in the Administrative Law Judiciary,
43 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judiciary
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol43/iss2/1