Hacker News Reader

Comment by Ensorceled | Hacker News Reader

This line seems to be referenced a lot in these comments:

> Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens.

Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

But so many comments are making the leap to they are targeting white people for layoffs and claiming this layoff is racist against white people.

For example this comment:

> People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism.

and this:

> I consider myself very ‘liberal’ per American standards (pro abortion, pro lgbt rights, pro racial diversity and acceptance), and this to me screams of woke culture gone wild. Looks like anything can be weaponised.

You can find more.

View on HN

> Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

that would have been illegal either way. Really there are two options here: Either they did something questionable and want to deflect (like being racist against white people. I'm not saying this is the case but it is a possibility), or they want to get a pat on the back for not breaking the law.

It's one of those sentences that immediately puts your mind to why it was placed in there: "[..] so we were particularly focused on ensuring our layoffs – while a business necessity today – were carried out without clubbing any seals."

Why would one say that? Why does one explicitly mention this? To what gain?

Either you want brownie-points for something that should be a given, or you want to get ahead of something.

> Sounds like they are taking steps to make sure whoever was chosen for layoffs were not chosen for racist reasons.

Doing so is illegal and makes little sense to put it in a public announcement. Might as well state that they don't intend to murder anyone.

See what Dr. Kendi is advocating for and his "anti-racist" ideas. I think it will make sense to you why some people write things like "People have lost their damn minds. This is actual institutionalized racism."

Kendi is one person with one interpretation and doesn't work for nor represent the policies of Twilio, a completely separate institution.

I read the statement the same as the GP comment.

Given that Kendi has spoken at Twilio and they Reference him in several of the DEI Annual reports it should be assumed that Twilio shares Kendi's view of "Anti-Racism"

oh, that's interesting. I'm not from Twilio, but Dr. Kendi has spoken at our company as well.

“We avoided firing people who aren’t white” vs “we preferred firing people who are white.”

This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.

They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.

Or, more charitably, "We avoided laying off racial/oppressed minorities for racist/bigoted reasons"

That should be a given. Why even bring it up?

It's like saying "I'm not racist" before doing something unrelated.

> That should be a given. Why even bring it up?

It should be; but I think it's naive or disingenuous to imply that hiring/layoff decisions are usually fair and unbiased, especially in multiple departments in a large organization.

Why not say "we ensured our layoffs were not affected by racist or gendered bias."? Why exclude non-minorities from the policy of non-discrimination?

Imagine a company writes, "We avoided laying off Latino men for racist or bigoted reasons." But not Latino women? But not African Americans? What is the message behind limiting this assurance of non-discrimination to a particular group?

I agree that people interpreting this as Twilio announcing that it explicitly discriminated against non-oppressed groups are reading way too deep into it. But it was a pretty dumb thing to put in a layoff note.

In a lot of parts of the US, "non-minorities" ARE the minority. Somehow, that doesn't matter.

I really need to make a HN bingo board one of these days, though it'll have to be like 12x12 or it'll be way too easy.

I'm tempted to build a filter that automatically ignores any comment on HN with the word 'woke.' It is, legitimately, the most annoying culture war I have seen on any forum.

There is good reason to believe that white people will be the primary targets of this layoff. I work for an employer in the Bay Area and the messaging echos many others in the region. We have been subjected to lectures and presentations for the past two years telling us that white people are a problem in society. That white people are privileged, are biased, and are oppressors. Management openly suggests to us through broadcasts that we should read the books, "How to be an anti-racist" and "White fragility". Leaders in the organization have these quasi-struggle sessions where they publicly confess their white privilege via broadcast. Management also openly states that race will be a factor in bonuses and promotions to help uplift minorities. They proudly state in their marketing that they will increase hiring of colored people and give charitable donations to black organizations.

Given this pattern of messaging, how else can someone conclude that white people are not the primary targets of a layoff of a San Francisco based company? Especially when the statement contains, "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens".

HN is full of reactionaries who are easily triggered by any sort of diversity-related language and seem to lose their ability to think critically. Everyone complaining about that line is making a whole lot of assumptions about what it actually means.

FWIW I would be interested to know what the CEO actually meant by that. My assumption is it's more lip service than anything else.

I love seeing people defend this statement by basically saying “it actually meant nothing”… as if that is a really strong defense.

I agree the statement is ambiguous. However, it does seem to be hinting at something.

What do you think "layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" means?

Like, what concrete actions do you think they took to justify that statement?

Do you think it's purely window-dressing? That they did absolutely nothing different, and just included the statement?

I don't know if it's an authoritative source, but here's one of the top Google results for "what is anti-racisim":

"Anti-racism is also a system – a system in which we create policies, practices, and procedures to promote racial equity."

and

"Anti-racist policy creates systems that center the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color"

and

"We refer to ‘racism’ as an interpersonal display of prejudice toward Black, Indigenous, and People of Color."

Given the above understanding of the term "anti-racist", if I were a betting man, I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.

What do you think?

(Link to anti-racist information: https://www.nlc.org/article/2020/07/21/what-does-it-mean-to-...)

> I'd bet that the racial makeup of the laid off employees is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company.

I would bet that your average "blind" layoff is not an even sampling of the racial makeup of the company. If they did anything at all here it was probably taking some sort of active role in preventing that outcome.

Well, I'd take that bet. Perhaps one of the laid-off employees will sue and we'll get to find out.

(Meta/off-topic: Someone flagged your comment, so I vouched for it. Viewpoint moderation is dumb and inhibits good conversation.)

This, and HN in aggregate is pretty right wing, so anything "woke" is bound to trigger a lot of people. I suppose there's always been a libertarian bend here in line tech workers in general, but ever since Trump (and especially Trump's loss), topics vaguely supporting progressive ideas are home to tons of comments airing right-wing grievances.

I don't think it's reactionary to oppose choosing who to fire based on their race.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com