11 ms·

Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? That's verbatim from

Anyone else read the letter from the CEO where they claim that the layoffs "were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"? That's verbatim from the actual PDF, in case anyone was curious (https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa734-ca9d-4d59-84b4-42ab54ca3603.pdf https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001447669/5c6aa73...) Page 6, under the heading "How did we decide which roles would be impacted". I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. Oh well, I guess we'll never know.

pentae 4y ago
They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle for hating white people, basically. Now I know this is super trendy right now but I don't want to get emails from your organization about how woke and bigoted you are. Just sell me the damn SaaS tool we signed up for and keep your politics to yourself. We moved all our business away.
- howinteresting 4y ago
  - csa 4y ago
    You refer to the original/early version of CRT. In the 90s and beyond, CRT has expanded substantially in scope. It has also changed focus in terms of how it is utilized.
    - skyyler 4y ago
      Could you recommend some texts responsible for the change in scope? My understanding of CRT is that race is entirely a social construction, and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction and not anything with real biological basis. When did that change?
      - claudiawerner 4y ago
        That's not really a good understanding - it may seem pedantic, but legal theorists and sociologists have very little to say about the 'real biological basis' of race; it's simply not within their purview. However, it may be used as an assumption or presupposition or not considered at all. You mentioned 'and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction' which correctly describes CRT, but it doesn't have anything to do with the biology (or lack thereof) of race.
        skyyler 4y ago
        I appreciate the feedback... Can you recommend any texts on CRT? My view is that of a layperson, I've never interacted with scholarly theory beyond reading shitposts about Hegel on telegram. But this is actually an interesting topic to me and I'd love to learn more.
      - csa 4y ago
        The Wikipedia page is not bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Note that Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995) was the widespread introduction of CRT into the field of education, which I think is the bit of CRT that is creating a lot of the fuss these days. Here is an article by Ladson-Billings: https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/documents/critical%20race%20theory%20what%20it%20is%20not.ashx?la=en https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/docu... Short summary of how CRT is perceived these days: https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-being-weaponised-whats-the-fuss-about https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/... This is a decent short article that explains how crt is being attacked in ways that are not “core” crt: https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752 https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-... In general, you can search for “critical race theory in $FIELD” and find out how the ideas have expanded beyond law. In my personal experience, here is what I have seen and experienced that has gone far beyond what core CRT is about: 1. CRT and postmodernism in academia often go hand-in-hand. In a gross over-simplification, this means that everything is socially constructed and there is no absolute truth. These ideas have merit and a place in academic research, but the reductio ad absurdum cases (some listed below) are not a really good look for a solid theory. 2. There are groups of people who call themselves liberals who cry “that’s racist” at what seems like every opportunity they can. When you engage them on the topic, they will sometimes begrudgingly acknowledge that they are referring to structural racism (which is not a difficult case to make). When asked what they would like me (or people like me) to do about something that I cannot control (being white), they don’t really have an answer other than “don’t be racist”, which isn’t what structural racism is about. These folks completely debase a very valid argument by invoking it in (imho) inappropriate ways, seemingly just for the sake of protesting or getting under the skin of moderates and conservatives. They don’t seem to realize that their actions are sometimes (often?) alienating the types of folks whose support that they need/want (i.e., open-minded moderates who do not want to be overtly and loudly labeled as racists due to structural racism). 3. In academic work (my first career), anything that is CRT-related becomes almost unassailable in review. The academic rigor in most CRT topics is laughable because, as designed, any rigor is considered oppression of some sort. The sad thing is that there is a small amount of really well done research that gets thrown in with the less good stuff, but it is all fairly tainted due to overall lack of rigor. 3a. Note that CRT topics and researchers are embraced at universities and some journals because it makes it much easier for them to reach diversity targets and publication targets (getting published in some sort of a CRT-themed journal is super easy, much like getting published in some sort of a tech-themed journal is super easy). 4. I have seen white people told in elite university classrooms that they should only be validating what non-white people are saying in the classroom discussions. This is despite the professor openly encouraging exchanging a diversity of views. 5. I have seen half-white people openly denounce the white half of their heritage because… reasons? In one specific case, an Asian American female who looks very Asian denounced her “white privilege” when probably 90% or more of her privilege came from her Asian side (her Asian side is well known in the community and is relatively wealthy, while her white side contributed mostly hard-to-see genetic privilege). In another case, a half white half Puerto Rican male who looks very white and has a white name aggressively denounced his white side and did academic research about the Puerto Rican struggle against the white man — as though he had any idea what it was like. His personal narrative research (popular in CRT) revealed that he had issues with his white father, and that was pretty much the source of all of his rage. Of course, based on CRT tenets, his research that was more about father-son and/or familial relationships became about racism writ large (unreasonably and inappropriately imho, even though the topic is very worthy of study). There are many, many cases like these. 6. For academics who are white, straight, males in the US, it is extremely difficult to get tenure in non-STEM departments/fields at high tier universities unless you go all in with CRT and post-modernism. Even then, it is tough. On the one hand, I appreciate that there is a wider range of views and life experiences that are represented in these fields. On the other hand, I am sad that a large swath of the US pool of potential academics is almost a priori excluded from becoming researchers in these fields. Note that I had tenure, so this didn’t effect me personally, but I have seen the impact on others (mostly in terms of opting out of an academic career). Note that I have some personal opinions that jibe with the data but aren’t really popular (which is one reason I left academia): - Every society has one or more privileged groups. This will be forever true. - The vast majority of privilege is determined by socio-economic status (SES). In the US, the numbers that seem to keep popping up are that about 5-10% of differences in most measures can be accounted for by race, and most/all of the rest is SES. Note that the one/main area that this may not hold true is in criminal prosecution in the US (not a legal scholar, so I’m not sure). - Changing SES is very difficult across generations, and I think I t’s a topic worthy of study. I think affirmative action in the US has made some useful progress in this area, but not in the ways that are typically cited. Incremental changes in SES are something that are measurable and achievable. Most attempted at large-scale change in SES have failed and will fail, imho, largely because it’s easy to change the E part of SES, but it’s much harder to change the S part (the much more salient part, imho).
  - anonym29 4y ago
    To imply there is absolutely no overlap between the group of people espousing CRT and the group of people who believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died is to be willfully ignorant of an unfortunate reality. We should be taking the opportunity to disavow the latter on behalf of the good intentions of the former.
    - howinteresting 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - thedorkknight 4y ago
      Do you have any actual data on how many people "believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died"? I don't mean this to be combative but without some actual survey data or something proving their significance, it seems like this is one of those "it feels true to me" things
      - skrbjc 4y ago
        This guy seems to be making a splash with his book about white people disappearing. With the general idea seeming to be the world would be better off. He’s reviewed favorably in many newspapers. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-white-man-mohsin-hamid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-whi...
    - RSieger1 4y ago
      Yes, unfortunately you're right. Ibram X. Kendi has been biting his tongue.
  - skyyler 4y ago
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
faxmeyourcode 4y ago
> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. 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. Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked. The civil rights act of 1964 should make racially-based decisions in workforce hiring/firing illegal, but here we are, nearly 60 years later.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Most state civil rights laws that list protected classes, specifically only minorities are protected - not white people. That's how it is in NY state.
  - t0mas88 4y ago
    You are wrong. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page
    - meragrin_ 4y ago
      New York state not New York City. Big difference.
      - t0mas88 4y ago
        Nope, same thing for NY State: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
        meragrin_ 4y ago
bl_valance 4y ago
wow, you would think saying that would be against some discrimination law but they'll probably get away with it.
Blackthorn 4y ago
Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.
- anonym29 4y ago
  Do you have any data or references to support your argument? I'm open to considering your hypothesis, but right now, it's merely an assertion.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > better, more fair Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
  - Blackthorn 4y ago
    > it's not better, it's not fair It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.
    - the_doctah 4y ago
      Your post is pure speculation and just kind of excuses this behavior. We should be asking why this corporate entity feels the need to casually dip into racism to virtue signal about the perceived positives of this layoff.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      Does it matter if it's not true? You sue for being let go due to racism, show the document, where they say exactly that, and they have to prove that they didn't take race in consideration after saying (in their own document) that they did.
- hudsonjr 4y ago
zwkrt 4y ago
Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come off as racist even if on paper you were just focusing on QA. In practice it probably just means some EA looked over the layoffs and made sure the optics wouldn't be horrible. I see this as more of a blow-hard CYA statement that they made sure there is no potential for a class action lawsuit. Putting it in the press release as a bullet point is pretty silly to me though.
- anonym29 4y ago
  I'll believe this was actually racially blind when Twilio releases a count of each race that was laid off, and the sum of each race for employees in the company prior to the layoff. It's very simple for everyone to verify whether there was racial targeting outside the statistically probable bounds of random selection from the parent group. I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards a provable shared reality with data rather than rhetoric. Humans lie. Sufficient amounts of data analyzed by a suficient number of people do not. Assuming it was possible to look at the data I call for above, would you be opposed to the public dissemination and analysis of it?
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    That's not good enough. They could just lie. You need a formal audit conducted by a third party. Anything else is unacceptable.
    - christkv 4y ago
      That’s what discovery is for in a court of law. Hopefully we all get to read the findings.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Please enumerate all the races first and the criteria to distinguish each race from the other. It will be important for your statistical analysis.
nemo44x 4y ago
Clearly a Civil Rights violation. I hope everyone impacted that isn't "marginalized" sues them for millions of dollars. We either have equality codified as Civil Rights law and respect that or we don't have it all and we are free to associate with people we want to in every respect. But you need to pick one.
- el_nahual 4y ago
  The ideal person to sue would be a "marginalized" person who was laid off, since the "anti racist" bs could impact this person twice: it means they got laid off even when the bar was higher for people of color, which will disproportionately affect them in their next job search (and feelings, etc).
bena 4y ago
I really couldn't say because I can see how that language can be used to defend whatever decision you want to make. Whether you fire star-bellied sneetches or non-star-bellied sneetches, you can just blame the algorithm. "Yes, the star-bellied sneetches were disproportionately affected and while that is tragic, we did carry it through a lens, so you know, we're good, right?"
peter422 4y ago
- anonym29 4y ago
  If this was an ordinary layoff announcement that made no mention of race, then we would have no idea whether it did or didn't have a tangible impact. The fact that the CEO decided to deliberately mention race and acknowledged that layoffs were performed through a racial lens? That's a pretty good indicator to me that a racial lens was used.
- fche 4y ago
  yes, so very hilarious that a ceo muses about making firing decisions based on race just so funny ha ha ha ha
darth_avocado 4y ago
>I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?
- wickedsickeune 4y ago
  That's still racist!! The only way for it not being racist is not having anything to do with race at all!
  - anonym29 4y ago
    +1. Race shouldn't be brought up in (or factored into) layoffs.
  - darth_avocado 4y ago
    Unfortunately that’s not what happens a lot of times. When managers are asked to cut people, in homogeneous teams, if there are people who are different based on some criteria are often the ones who are cut. Not saying any particular race or gender does it, but that’s what happens. And that is what is being avoided here.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
the_doctah 4y ago
>Oh well, I guess we'll never know. Until the discovery phase
mhb 4y ago
In addition to wishing that he could use "affected" instead of "impacted", I'm curious how the lens works. Is there a database with the races or colors of all their employees? And what query do you use to implement the lens?
- testfoobar 4y ago
  What is the race field in their HR database and what range of values does it possess? What is the sorting algorithm?
jejeyyy77 4y ago
You can probably derive this data based on who they laid off.
fche 4y ago
w t f
- anonym29 4y ago
  This doesn't actually come as a surprise to you, does it?
UtopiaPunk 4y ago
Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~. All CEOs are bastards.
- pc86 4y ago
  > Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~. > All CEOs are bastards. Imagine turning a perfectly valid criticism into some weird anti-capitalist thing?
  - weakfish 4y ago
    It’s true though
    - pc86 4y ago
      It's just so weird, though. If you honestly have that opinion, that means one of two things is true. 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directing Apple early on and instilling a certain culture (for better or worse). Maybe you think that employee-owned co-ops would produce things of higher value for lower cost, but that hasn't really been the cast so far in human history. Employee-owned companies exist and none of them are producing world-class products, and most of them still have CEOs. 2. You think we should have CEOs, maybe because they're a necessary evil or something, but you still want to bitch about it online, in which case ... :shrug:? What's the third option?
      - mod 4y ago
        > 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs. Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief? I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashion-attributes who makes a lot of money. [0] https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of-businesses-in-the-united-states.html https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of... [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm
dehrmann 4y ago
I suppose the EEOC could subpoena emails relating to selection.
- crackercrews 4y ago
  Perhaps the next administration might. The current one is more likely to offer a pat on the back.
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    For how much Republicans hate woke politics, I'm surprised Trump didn't have the EEOC look into hiring practices of tech companies. I'm not sure what would come of it (though I suspect there are illegal practices in order to hit diversity targets), but the announcement would have been a political win because Republican's don't trust big tech, don't trust coastal liberals, and don't like that this might be taking place.
    - strix_varius 4y ago
      Christ you're right, would have been brilliant.
enumjorge 4y ago
It feels like you're trying to flamebait rather than have a discussion about this. I encourage people to read comments on the other related thread [1] that seems to have disappeared from the front page for some reason. [1] Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250
- overtonwhy 4y ago
  Bunch of new accounts commenting doing it too.
white_dragon88 4y ago
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.
- rurp 4y ago
  Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    They were explicitly "anti-racist" which is just racism done differently.
    - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
      No it's just regular old racism.
  - weatherlite 4y ago
    But we are all fine with racist hiring...
    - mod 4y ago
      I don't think that's a true statement.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      I am fine with hiring that enforces equality of opportunity (where nobody is denied an opportunity because of their race). I am NOT fine with hiring that enforces equality of outcome (where some people, who would otherwise be considered unqualified, are granted an opportunity because of their race). Race should account for ZERO percent of a hiring decision.

pentae 4y ago

They have been pushing "anti-racism" hard, which sounds nice on the surface but when you dig into critical race theory where its coming from it's a dog whistle for hating white people, basically. Now I know this is super trendy right now but I don't want to get emails from your organization about how woke and bigoted you are. Just sell me the damn SaaS tool we signed up for and keep your politics to yourself. We moved all our business away.

howinteresting 4y ago
- csa 4y ago
  You refer to the original/early version of CRT. In the 90s and beyond, CRT has expanded substantially in scope. It has also changed focus in terms of how it is utilized.
  - skyyler 4y ago
    Could you recommend some texts responsible for the change in scope? My understanding of CRT is that race is entirely a social construction, and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction and not anything with real biological basis. When did that change?
    - claudiawerner 4y ago
      That's not really a good understanding - it may seem pedantic, but legal theorists and sociologists have very little to say about the 'real biological basis' of race; it's simply not within their purview. However, it may be used as an assumption or presupposition or not considered at all. You mentioned 'and that the laws and attitudes surrounding race are primarily informed by this social construction' which correctly describes CRT, but it doesn't have anything to do with the biology (or lack thereof) of race.
      - skyyler 4y ago
        I appreciate the feedback... Can you recommend any texts on CRT? My view is that of a layperson, I've never interacted with scholarly theory beyond reading shitposts about Hegel on telegram. But this is actually an interesting topic to me and I'd love to learn more.
    - csa 4y ago
      The Wikipedia page is not bad. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory Note that Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995) was the widespread introduction of CRT into the field of education, which I think is the bit of CRT that is creating a lot of the fuss these days. Here is an article by Ladson-Billings: https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/documents/critical%20race%20theory%20what%20it%20is%20not.ashx?la=en https://www.loyola.edu/-/media/join-us/karson-institute/docu... Short summary of how CRT is perceived these days: https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/14/critical-race-theory-is-being-weaponised-whats-the-fuss-about https://www.economist.com/interactive/united-states/2022/07/... This is a decent short article that explains how crt is being attacked in ways that are not “core” crt: https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752 https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-... In general, you can search for “critical race theory in $FIELD” and find out how the ideas have expanded beyond law. In my personal experience, here is what I have seen and experienced that has gone far beyond what core CRT is about: 1. CRT and postmodernism in academia often go hand-in-hand. In a gross over-simplification, this means that everything is socially constructed and there is no absolute truth. These ideas have merit and a place in academic research, but the reductio ad absurdum cases (some listed below) are not a really good look for a solid theory. 2. There are groups of people who call themselves liberals who cry “that’s racist” at what seems like every opportunity they can. When you engage them on the topic, they will sometimes begrudgingly acknowledge that they are referring to structural racism (which is not a difficult case to make). When asked what they would like me (or people like me) to do about something that I cannot control (being white), they don’t really have an answer other than “don’t be racist”, which isn’t what structural racism is about. These folks completely debase a very valid argument by invoking it in (imho) inappropriate ways, seemingly just for the sake of protesting or getting under the skin of moderates and conservatives. They don’t seem to realize that their actions are sometimes (often?) alienating the types of folks whose support that they need/want (i.e., open-minded moderates who do not want to be overtly and loudly labeled as racists due to structural racism). 3. In academic work (my first career), anything that is CRT-related becomes almost unassailable in review. The academic rigor in most CRT topics is laughable because, as designed, any rigor is considered oppression of some sort. The sad thing is that there is a small amount of really well done research that gets thrown in with the less good stuff, but it is all fairly tainted due to overall lack of rigor. 3a. Note that CRT topics and researchers are embraced at universities and some journals because it makes it much easier for them to reach diversity targets and publication targets (getting published in some sort of a CRT-themed journal is super easy, much like getting published in some sort of a tech-themed journal is super easy). 4. I have seen white people told in elite university classrooms that they should only be validating what non-white people are saying in the classroom discussions. This is despite the professor openly encouraging exchanging a diversity of views. 5. I have seen half-white people openly denounce the white half of their heritage because… reasons? In one specific case, an Asian American female who looks very Asian denounced her “white privilege” when probably 90% or more of her privilege came from her Asian side (her Asian side is well known in the community and is relatively wealthy, while her white side contributed mostly hard-to-see genetic privilege). In another case, a half white half Puerto Rican male who looks very white and has a white name aggressively denounced his white side and did academic research about the Puerto Rican struggle against the white man — as though he had any idea what it was like. His personal narrative research (popular in CRT) revealed that he had issues with his white father, and that was pretty much the source of all of his rage. Of course, based on CRT tenets, his research that was more about father-son and/or familial relationships became about racism writ large (unreasonably and inappropriately imho, even though the topic is very worthy of study). There are many, many cases like these. 6. For academics who are white, straight, males in the US, it is extremely difficult to get tenure in non-STEM departments/fields at high tier universities unless you go all in with CRT and post-modernism. Even then, it is tough. On the one hand, I appreciate that there is a wider range of views and life experiences that are represented in these fields. On the other hand, I am sad that a large swath of the US pool of potential academics is almost a priori excluded from becoming researchers in these fields. Note that I had tenure, so this didn’t effect me personally, but I have seen the impact on others (mostly in terms of opting out of an academic career). Note that I have some personal opinions that jibe with the data but aren’t really popular (which is one reason I left academia): - Every society has one or more privileged groups. This will be forever true. - The vast majority of privilege is determined by socio-economic status (SES). In the US, the numbers that seem to keep popping up are that about 5-10% of differences in most measures can be accounted for by race, and most/all of the rest is SES. Note that the one/main area that this may not hold true is in criminal prosecution in the US (not a legal scholar, so I’m not sure). - Changing SES is very difficult across generations, and I think I t’s a topic worthy of study. I think affirmative action in the US has made some useful progress in this area, but not in the ways that are typically cited. Incremental changes in SES are something that are measurable and achievable. Most attempted at large-scale change in SES have failed and will fail, imho, largely because it’s easy to change the E part of SES, but it’s much harder to change the S part (the much more salient part, imho).
- anonym29 4y ago
  To imply there is absolutely no overlap between the group of people espousing CRT and the group of people who believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died is to be willfully ignorant of an unfortunate reality. We should be taking the opportunity to disavow the latter on behalf of the good intentions of the former.
  - howinteresting 4y ago
    [flagged]
  - thedorkknight 4y ago
    Do you have any actual data on how many people "believe the world would be a better place if every white person spontaneously died"? I don't mean this to be combative but without some actual survey data or something proving their significance, it seems like this is one of those "it feels true to me" things
    - skrbjc 4y ago
      This guy seems to be making a splash with his book about white people disappearing. With the general idea seeming to be the world would be better off. He’s reviewed favorably in many newspapers. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-white-man-mohsin-hamid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/books/review/the-last-whi...
  - RSieger1 4y ago
    Yes, unfortunately you're right. Ibram X. Kendi has been biting his tongue.
- skyyler 4y ago
- nonethewiser 4y ago

faxmeyourcode 4y ago

> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. 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. Just wanted to add some additional context from the PDF you linked. The civil rights act of 1964 should make racially-based decisions in workforce hiring/firing illegal, but here we are, nearly 60 years later.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
koheripbal 4y ago
Most state civil rights laws that list protected classes, specifically only minorities are protected - not white people. That's how it is in NY state.
- t0mas88 4y ago
  You are wrong. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/the-law.page
  - meragrin_ 4y ago
    New York state not New York City. Big difference.
    - t0mas88 4y ago
      Nope, same thing for NY State: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/eepc/laws/state-laws.page The parent post is just plain wrong. Race and color are protected classes, for every race and every color, not just for specific ones.
      - meragrin_ 4y ago

bl_valance 4y ago

wow, you would think saying that would be against some discrimination law but they'll probably get away with it.

Blackthorn 4y ago

Anyone who actually believes that, I've got an array of bridges to sell you. People doing layoffs will say anything they can to make the fact that they just laid people off seem better, more fair, whatever. This is just the latest attempt at that. It looks as ridiculous as every other attempt throughout history.

anonym29 4y ago
Do you have any data or references to support your argument? I'm open to considering your hypothesis, but right now, it's merely an assertion.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> better, more fair Imagine being a white guy, just laid off... it's not better, it's not fair, it seems like pure racism (even if you'd get fired anyways), and in a normal country, would be a basis for a discrimination lawsuit.
- Blackthorn 4y ago
  > it's not better, it's not fair It's also probably not true in the first place. Which is the point of my post.
  - the_doctah 4y ago
    Your post is pure speculation and just kind of excuses this behavior. We should be asking why this corporate entity feels the need to casually dip into racism to virtue signal about the perceived positives of this layoff.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    Does it matter if it's not true? You sue for being let go due to racism, show the document, where they say exactly that, and they have to prove that they didn't take race in consideration after saying (in their own document) that they did.
hudsonjr 4y ago

zwkrt 4y ago

Crucify me for being woke, but I feel like getting upset at this statement is overblown. There is no way that there was a 'white people quota' or anything like that (which would not be 'anti racist'). Charitably, 'anti-racist' just means not turning a blind eye to the real and/or perceived racial outcomes of your decisions. If most of your QA testers are Vietnamese and you cut your whole QA department, it can come off as racist even if on paper you were just focusing on QA. In practice it probably just means some EA looked over the layoffs and made sure the optics wouldn't be horrible. I see this as more of a blow-hard CYA statement that they made sure there is no potential for a class action lawsuit. Putting it in the press release as a bullet point is pretty silly to me though.

anonym29 4y ago
I'll believe this was actually racially blind when Twilio releases a count of each race that was laid off, and the sum of each race for employees in the company prior to the layoff. It's very simple for everyone to verify whether there was racial targeting outside the statistically probable bounds of random selection from the parent group. I have no problem with people being woke as long as we're both working towards a provable shared reality with data rather than rhetoric. Humans lie. Sufficient amounts of data analyzed by a suficient number of people do not. Assuming it was possible to look at the data I call for above, would you be opposed to the public dissemination and analysis of it?
- spamizbad 4y ago
  That's not good enough. They could just lie. You need a formal audit conducted by a third party. Anything else is unacceptable.
  - christkv 4y ago
    That’s what discovery is for in a court of law. Hopefully we all get to read the findings.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Please enumerate all the races first and the criteria to distinguish each race from the other. It will be important for your statistical analysis.

nemo44x 4y ago

Clearly a Civil Rights violation. I hope everyone impacted that isn't "marginalized" sues them for millions of dollars. We either have equality codified as Civil Rights law and respect that or we don't have it all and we are free to associate with people we want to in every respect. But you need to pick one.

el_nahual 4y ago
The ideal person to sue would be a "marginalized" person who was laid off, since the "anti racist" bs could impact this person twice: it means they got laid off even when the bar was higher for people of color, which will disproportionately affect them in their next job search (and feelings, etc).

bena 4y ago

I really couldn't say because I can see how that language can be used to defend whatever decision you want to make. Whether you fire star-bellied sneetches or non-star-bellied sneetches, you can just blame the algorithm. "Yes, the star-bellied sneetches were disproportionately affected and while that is tragic, we did carry it through a lens, so you know, we're good, right?"

peter422 4y ago

anonym29 4y ago
If this was an ordinary layoff announcement that made no mention of race, then we would have no idea whether it did or didn't have a tangible impact. The fact that the CEO decided to deliberately mention race and acknowledged that layoffs were performed through a racial lens? That's a pretty good indicator to me that a racial lens was used.
fche 4y ago
yes, so very hilarious that a ceo muses about making firing decisions based on race just so funny ha ha ha ha

darth_avocado 4y ago

>I wonder what race they deliberately targeted for these layoffs, with language like that. What if, the meaning of “anti-racist” layoffs, is to fire all races equally?

wickedsickeune 4y ago
That's still racist!! The only way for it not being racist is not having anything to do with race at all!
- anonym29 4y ago
  +1. Race shouldn't be brought up in (or factored into) layoffs.
- darth_avocado 4y ago
  Unfortunately that’s not what happens a lot of times. When managers are asked to cut people, in homogeneous teams, if there are people who are different based on some criteria are often the ones who are cut. Not saying any particular race or gender does it, but that’s what happens. And that is what is being avoided here.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

the_doctah 4y ago

>Oh well, I guess we'll never know. Until the discovery phase

mhb 4y ago

In addition to wishing that he could use "affected" instead of "impacted", I'm curious how the lens works. Is there a database with the races or colors of all their employees? And what query do you use to implement the lens?

testfoobar 4y ago
What is the race field in their HR database and what range of values does it possess? What is the sorting algorithm?

jejeyyy77 4y ago

You can probably derive this data based on who they laid off.

fche 4y ago

w t f

anonym29 4y ago
This doesn't actually come as a surprise to you, does it?

UtopiaPunk 4y ago

Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~. All CEOs are bastards.

pc86 4y ago
> Throwing people out on the street is tough, but at least we destroy people's livelihoods ~progressively~. > All CEOs are bastards. Imagine turning a perfectly valid criticism into some weird anti-capitalist thing?
- weakfish 4y ago
  It’s true though
  - pc86 4y ago
    It's just so weird, though. If you honestly have that opinion, that means one of two things is true. 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. Using Apple as an example, it never would have released the products it did - not to say Steve or Tim are soldering iPhone components, that's clearly not what I mean. But you can't honestly believe that Jobs didn't play some role in directing Apple early on and instilling a certain culture (for better or worse). Maybe you think that employee-owned co-ops would produce things of higher value for lower cost, but that hasn't really been the cast so far in human history. Employee-owned companies exist and none of them are producing world-class products, and most of them still have CEOs. 2. You think we should have CEOs, maybe because they're a necessary evil or something, but you still want to bitch about it online, in which case ... :shrug:? What's the third option?
    - mod 4y ago
      > 1. We shouldn't have CEOs, in which case most businesses today wouldn't exist. There's over 30 million businesses in the US [0], and 200,000 CEOs. Is it really impossible to imagine another structure that doesn't involve a CEO or chief? I don't personally think it'll change anything (nor do I have any hatred for CEOs), we'll just hate whoever made the decision. It's just easier when it's one human-with-out-of-fashion-attributes who makes a lot of money. [0] https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of-businesses-in-the-united-states.html https://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2019/04/11/number-of... [1] https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm

dehrmann 4y ago

I suppose the EEOC could subpoena emails relating to selection.

crackercrews 4y ago
Perhaps the next administration might. The current one is more likely to offer a pat on the back.
- dehrmann 4y ago
  For how much Republicans hate woke politics, I'm surprised Trump didn't have the EEOC look into hiring practices of tech companies. I'm not sure what would come of it (though I suspect there are illegal practices in order to hit diversity targets), but the announcement would have been a political win because Republican's don't trust big tech, don't trust coastal liberals, and don't like that this might be taking place.
  - strix_varius 4y ago
    Christ you're right, would have been brilliant.

enumjorge 4y ago

It feels like you're trying to flamebait rather than have a discussion about this. I encourage people to read comments on the other related thread [1] that seems to have disappeared from the front page for some reason. [1] Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250

overtonwhy 4y ago
Bunch of new accounts commenting doing it too.

white_dragon88 4y ago

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.

rurp 4y ago
Same here. I'm pretty liberal on a number of issues, but this kind of language is extremely off-putting to me. If it means that the layoffs were explicitly racist, that is disgusting.
- nemo44x 4y ago
  They were explicitly "anti-racist" which is just racism done differently.
  - NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
    No it's just regular old racism.
- weatherlite 4y ago
  But we are all fine with racist hiring...
  - mod 4y ago
    I don't think that's a true statement.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    I am fine with hiring that enforces equality of opportunity (where nobody is denied an opportunity because of their race). I am NOT fine with hiring that enforces equality of outcome (where some people, who would otherwise be considered unqualified, are granted an opportunity because of their race). Race should account for ZERO percent of a hiring decision.