“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.
This school of thought purports to agree that harmful impact supersedes good intent.
They just refuse to recognize the individual as the ultimate minority.
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.
It's like saying "I'm not racist" before doing something unrelated.
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.