4 ms·
“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 superse
by jballer 4y ago
“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.
- Ensorceled 4y agoOr, more charitably, "We avoided laying off racial/oppressed minorities for racist/bigoted reasons"
- Antrikshy 4y agoThat should be a given. Why even bring it up? It's like saying "I'm not racist" before doing something unrelated.
- Ensorceled 4y ago> 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.
- Manuel_D 4y agoWhy 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.
- RSieger1 4y agoIn a lot of parts of the US, "non-minorities" ARE the minority. Somehow, that doesn't matter.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
- skrtskrt 4y ago