This article presents the author's response to Paul E. Newton's paper titled "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" ("Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives," 2012). Newton's paper offers an interesting and constructive discussion about how people think about validity. In this reaction, the author comments on some of the issues Newton raises. The premise of Newton's article appears to be that the concept and definition of validity are unclear. With respect to the definition offered by the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing," Newton notes that the Standards "can be read in a variety of ways, each with potentially different implications for how validation is to be understood and tackled." Bennett responds that, while this premise may be correct, it is not necessarily objectionable nor surprising, as some form of generality may be desirable for a given formulation to have applicability to a wide range of situations. (Contains 1 footnote.)