<p>Background Perceptions of professional misconduct in leadership roles may be influenced by the social identities of the accused, including race and gender, as well as the type of misconduct. Method The present study examined how evaluations of a university department head’s alleged misconduct varied by the accused’s race (Black vs. White), gender (male vs. female), and type of misconduct (plagiarism vs. racism). A total of 686 undergraduate participants read one of eight vignettes describing the misconduct and rated the accused’s intent, guilt, blame, sympathy, and believability of the situation. Results Results showed no effects of gender, nor interactions between gender and race. Race was found to significantly influence evaluations, such that the White department head was perceived as acting with greater intent and was perceived as more guilty, compared to the Black department head. Misconduct type also affected perceptions, with accusations of plagiarism generally resulting in greater blame to the department head than accusations of racism. Furthermore, Black department heads were assigned more blame when accused of plagiarism versus racism, whereas White department heads’ evaluations were not influenced by misconduct type. Implications These findings suggest that in cases of professional misconduct, judgments of the accused may be influenced by race, with these perceptions varying by the type of misconduct.</p>