There has been ample consideration of ways in which instructional techniques might be improved to increase the extent to which they serve diverse groups of students (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008). This work is important, however, by focusing primarily on instruction, it does not fully consider potential bias in assessments. To achieve educational equity, we must begin to examine the extent to which methods of assessment unfairly reflect true competence. Researchers have identified types and features of assessments that reduce evidence of achievement gaps between underrepresented ethnic minority (URM) and non-URM students (Montenegro & Jankowski, 2017; Singer-Freeman & Bastone, 2018). However, there is need of more systematic empirical evidence to demonstrate that identified features of assessments have similar effects across all contexts. We systematically examined the extent to which different forms of assessments resulted in grade inequities. We examined scores from the same students on different assignments disaggregated by URM status in four classes (Introduction to Theater, Child Development, Language Development, and Experimental Psychology) at two public colleges (a community college and a liberal arts college). Across assignments, we found no evidence of achievement gaps in inclusive projects (88% vs. 93%), reflective writing in any mode of delivery (online, traditional, or ePortfolio (90% vs. 93%), advanced writing in the discipline (79% vs. 79%), or online quizzes (84% vs. 88%). However, URM students received lower grades than non-URM students on formal essays (76% vs. 85%), in-person multiple-choice exams (69% vs. 82%), and low-stakes quizzes (77% vs. 86%). Our data provide preliminary support for a theoretical model of culturally responsive assessment. Achievement gaps emerged most in assessments that were low in both utility value (students’ awareness of a purpose to the work beyond grades) and inclusive content (material that is equally familiar to all students). Importantly, we believe the achievement gaps revealed in test scores were false because other assignments that were designed to assess the same areas of mastery but were high in either utility value (reflective writing and writing in the discipline) or inclusive content (inclusive projects), evoked equivalent evidence of competence from the same groups of students regardless of ethnicity.