But What about My Free Speech? Free Speech Appeals Reduce Accountability for Workplace Bias

This research examines how appeals to freedom of speech affect people’s evaluations of biased speech and their willingness to hold perpetrators of biased speech accountable. Results from four experimental studies (total N = 3897) revealed that (a) defensive appeals to free speech (relative to alternate appeals or saying nothing) reduced evaluations of severity and willingness to hold perpetrators accountable in instances of both racism and sexism. (b) This effect generally held across participant race, gender, and ideology and even occurred when evaluating anti-racist speech, suggesting the effect is not exclusive to those with hierarchy-enhancing motivations. (c) Information about a policy that mandated inclusion did not eliminate our effect, whereas a policy mandating free speech reduced accountability for bias, even in the absence of a free speech appeal. (d) Examination of mechanism supports our theorizing that these appeals work by increasing perspective taking with the perpetrator, activating impartiality norms, and increasing ambivalence, reducing the relative focus on the initial bias. (e) An intervention that shifted attention back to the consequences of bias offset the effects of the free speech appeal. Our findings illustrate the exculpatory effect of a free speech appeal, even for explicitly racist and sexist speech. These findings advance our understanding of how people navigate the tension between free speech permissions and biased speech prohibitions, which contributes to scholarship about how diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts get undermined.