Given its centrality to assessment, until the concept of validity includes concern for racial justice, such matters will be seen as residing outside the "real" work of validation, rendering them powerless to count against the apparent scientific merit of the test. As the definition of validity has evolved, however, it holds great potential to centralize matters like racial (in)justice, positioning them as necessary validity evidence. This article reviews a history of debates over what validity should and shouldn't encompass; we then look toward the more centralized stances on validity -- the book series Standards and Educational Measurement -- where we see that test use, and the social impact of test use, has been a mounting concern over the years within these publications. Finally, we explore Kane's argument-based approach to validation, which I argue could impact racial justice concerns by centralizing them within the very notion of what makes assessment valid or invalid.