2 ms·
Sometimes the underperformers in a company just happen to skew a particular race. Publicly announcing such a layoff demographic would naturally allow for accusa
by twiceaday 4y ago
Sometimes the underperformers in a company just happen to skew a particular race. Publicly announcing such a layoff demographic would naturally allow for accusations of racism. That is what I am calling reality being racist. The summary facts of the situation can be called racist and it can be very difficult to defend that accusation without sharing huge amounts of internal data. So companies don't simply stay away from racism, they stay away from decisions that could be called racist. The difference between these two strategies is the problem. Touting anti-racism makes the problem worse, because it widens the gap between the two strategies by weaponizing accusations of racism for any action that remotely allows them. "This company tried to win brownie points by claiming it is not racist but look at this clearly racist thing they did."
- rimunroe 4y agoHonestly I have some trouble following your comment. While not conceding your assertion about underperformers naturally skewing to a particular race, I'd like to point out that a company saying they're going to view things through an anti-racist lens likely means as little as checking to see if there's a disparity in who is being let go, and, if there is, double checking to make sure they're not choosing who to let go in a biased manner.