10 ms·
This creates three problems. The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. The second is that minorities who
by crackercrews 4y ago
This creates three problems. The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. The second is that minorities who were not affected may be assumed to have been kept because of their minority status.
But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off. That signals that they were really subpar, even more than the average laid off person.
It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people. Some would say that's a disparate effect on minorities, and the policy is therefore racist. /s
edit: these are just the perception problems. There's also the fact that it is possibly illegal and unethical.
- blockwriter 4y agoIs the first problem not the immediate implication of laying people off through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens? You have to assume that the lens selected not exclusively on merit, but also on factors like race, gender, orientation, or creed, in some measure, or in at least one instance. Otherwise, the lens could be said the exist, ever vigilant in its purpose, and yet was not required in this particular batch of layoffs, thank God. The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, orientation, gender, or religion, may be far more pervasive due to the framing than is actually warranted; that I concede.
- marcosdumay 4y agoAll the 3 are immediate implications of that statement. The belief that individuals were affected due to their race, etc will almost certainly be pervasive because the upper management claimed that it's what happened. And that will be despite the fact that upper management is almost certainly not competent enough to decide on the competence of the people they are laying off (they never are).
- the_doctah 4y agoThey say anti-racist but they really just mean racist. They are taking race into account when making staffing decisions. It's as illegal as the extra "side pot" of raise money my company has for diverse employees.
- slt2021 4y agoCompanies care about diversity numbers when they have a lot of cheap funding. When funding is tough, pure capitalism takes over woke values and it is up to whether your monetary value to the company>your monetary cost to the company.
- crackercrews 4y agoThere are lots of studies claiming that diversity makes companies more successful. But all that I've seen are correlational studies. And those are equally explained by the idea you mentioned. When companies are flush, they spend money on affirmative action. Therefore companies that have heavy affirmative action tend to be more successful.
- the_doctah 4y agoMy employer has specifically called out ESG investments as one of the reasons they have gone super woke.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cuteboy19 4y ago>some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race But is it actually true? Did they fire white people at a higher rate?
- shrewduser 4y agotrue or not, those statements would create that perception.
- crackercrews 4y agoThey apparently laid off white people at a higher rate than they would have. Otherwise the statement about using an anti-racist lens would be incredibly misleading.
- wizofaus 4y ago"Than they would have" if what though? They just allowed subconscious racist biases to affect their decision making? It's not like we lack evidence that this does in fact happen. If an "anti-racist lens" means anything other than "processes to help avoid the effect of subconscious racial bias" I'd agree it's a problem.
- crackercrews 4y agoThe opposite of anti-racist isn't racist. You are assuming the decision makers have subconscious racist biases. And you are assuming those biases favor white people, men, etc. In the world I live in there is a good chance that each of these is false. The fact that they made this statement indicates as much.
- wizofaus 4y agoThere are actual studies showing 95-99% of us have subconscious racist biases. And so what which races they favour? I'd call it a massive fail for any "anti-racist lens" if, say, only whites were fired. (You also mention "men" - subconscious sexist biases are just as universal. For highly skilled roles unfortunately they very much typically favour men.)
- LeifCarrotson 4y agoHowever, it avoids a perception problem which may be far worse: the hypothetical perception that the people drawing up the layoffs were racist and that they disproportionately affected minorities. They wrote "Layoffs like this can have a more pronounced impact on marginalized communities, so we were particularly focused.." on making sure they did not. If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random, there's a chance that someone later would say "Twilio employees are 35% female, 33% Asian, 9% Latino, and 6% Black, but the laid-off employees were 11% Latino! Racism!" and turn a mob against them. Once the media/Twitter/mob believe that Twilio HR and Twilio executives are racist, those execs might try to defend themselves by saying: "We weighted based on performance reviews, added a bit of statistical noise, and then did a random selection. We believe those performance reviews to be objective and free of racial bias. We didn't even realize that Latinos were slightly over-represented in the layoffs until you mentioned it, but it looks to be merely statistical chance. We actually fired slightly more white people and more men than the statistics would suggest, we're not bigots." ...Do you think that would work? It's far easier to defend against the accusation of being overly woke than it is to defend against the accusation of being racist, so while you'd rather be neither, it's better to overtly and publicly fail in the safer direction.
- crackercrews 4y ago> If they ignored race entirely, and just laid off people at random This is a false dichotomy. They could have done layoffs based on the company's needs and the performance of the employees. That isn't random. Your big picture point amounts to a heckler's veto. The more you cater to the heckler, the more powerful the heckler becomes.
- jrs235 4y agoImagine being a minority applying for a job after being laid off from twilio... Like you said this is awful as hiring managers will assume they must really suck. Horrible. Horrible. It would have been fine for twilio to do the layoff the way they did but they should have just kept their mouth quiet about it instead of virtue signaling. They have done more harm than good.
- karmasimida 4y agoThe CEO pretty confirmed race is a factor, it is not believe, he said it. Would this be legal even?
- lr1970 4y agoBut is it plain illegal. For employment purposes Race is a protected class (at least in USA) and racial discrimination while hiring or firing violates federal law. How would they get away with this?
- jballer 4y agoThey're betting that a lawsuit would be so wildly unpopular that people would rather leave the money (and the principle) behind than face social exile.
- crackercrews 4y agoIsn't affirmative action in hiring legal? Seems like this is just the same thing but for layoffs.
- NeverFade 4y agoIt is absolutely illegal. It violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which: > outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Yes, that's the same act that makes it illegal to discriminate against racial minorities, women, religions, etc. Discrimination based on race is illegal, pure and simple. Hiding it under nice names like "affirmative action" does not change this fact.
- mrtranscendence 4y agoI don’t think this is right. Affirmative action has been upheld by the courts, and is currently in practice at some private employers (and is mandated for government contractors).
- NeverFade 4y agoYou are wrong. There is one judgement that upholds a form of affirmative action in very narrow circumstances (education) and only in very limited form, and even that is challenged in SCOTUS and likely to be overturned: https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-court-weighs-harvard-admissions-case-two-asian-americans-speak-out-and-allege-bias https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/2021/07/22/as-supreme-co... Racist discrimination is an ugly thing, even when you call it pretty names like "affirmative action". If Affirmative Action was universally legal, than nothing would prevent racist/sexist discrimination as long as you have a nice-sounding excuse for it, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be rendered vacant. Women outnumber men 1.3:1 in college admissions, so Affirmative Action would let me openly discriminate in favor of men in hiring and promotion, as they are evidently a disadvantaged population compared to women.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoEveryone who was laid off here has strong grounds to sue for racial discrimination. White people and non-white people alike.
- TigeriusKirk 4y agoIt also makes the company a political lightning rod, making whatever their business situation is worse. Irresponsible move by a CEO.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago> It seems like this policy has two negative impacts on minorities and only one on white people. Yeah, but the minorities who kept their jobs even it out to 1 point for whites and 1 point for minorities. Cause that's who this shit works, as a zero-sum game.
- xanaxagoras 4y ago> The first is that some white people who were affected will believe it was because of their race. It literally was because of their race. > But the most harmful is for minorities who were laid off srs?