Hrm. The idea that an arbitrary decision could be scrutinized in isolation to determine the amount of bias that went into it is... optimistic at best. Realist

Hrm. The idea that an arbitrary decision could be scrutinized in isolation to determine the amount of bias that went into it is... optimistic at best. Realistically it's willfully naive, and practically it serves to preserve the status quo of bias in the workplace and in society. You talk pretty big ("I will protect your right to free speech to the death"!), but it's quite clear that you wont't actually defend anyone's right to free speech (unless they're discussing their own bigotry, in which case apparently we aren't permitted to freely speak against them). EDIT: A simpler way to put it might be that the decisions you make regarding whose free speech you defend are obviously colored by your own unconscious bias.