a) you are extremely stupid
b) you are super woke and are using this as a signalling opportunity
Extremely stupid people sometimes run billion-dollar companies but it's the exception.
You must believe one of those if you think my previous is an example of b).
Right now I see a whole lot of assumptions and very little evidence.
The best case of your apologetics amounts to: maybe they did normal layoffs and they're just framing it in an arbitrary way so as to acknowledge woke beliefs. Which is a restatement of the virtue signalling described by the commenter above.
You might say that we therefore looking at reviews through an unbiasing lens.
Using an antiracist lens could mean they had one person in the room whose responsibility was to tie the conversation back to data about employee performance rather than, "well, I have a hard time understanding person x, let's fire them."
It's not just black and white, there are many ways this could be an innocent policy by Twilio. It could be what you describe, it could just be "we nominated someone to speak up in the meeting, but didn't really listen to them much".
My point is that we don't know. You've made up your mind, but it's not that simple.
Whether their policy was directly effective toward that end or just another layer of obtuse bureaucratic process like you describe, Twilio is signalling that they applied antiwhite ideology to their employment decisions.
There are actions you can take that do not have anything to do with whiteness.
If you tell a racist joke or use a racist slur, and I tell you not to do that, I am acting in an anti racist manner. It cost white folks nothing.
All antiracist means is "actively against racism", meaning when you observe racism you take action.