12 ms·

Are Race-Based Firings Legal? Twilio's About to Find Out

116 points by lxm 4y ago

thrown_22 4y ago
America is such a racist country that even when they try to stop being racist they do it in the most racist way possible. >You're black and applying to college? You're obviously stupid [0] and we'll add 200 SAT points to your application. Oh no, we'd never add points on means based testing, we'd end up having the poors in Harvard if we did. Why are you asking? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idpevmeoK1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idpevmeoK1A
- flatiron 4y ago
  Meritocracy has its issues as well. A lot of people got 200 points from private schools and tutoring that may not be available to a lot of the disenfranchised.
  - telotortium 4y ago
    I would agree, but it's not like Harvard will refrain from preferring black candidates from elite private schools, where the staff definitely know how to direct students to tutoring for SAT, over white students from those same schools.
  - pookha 4y ago
    Why should anyone be discriminated against strictly by skin color? That's insane and racist.
    - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      Equality is out, equity is in.
  - PubliusMI 4y ago
    It's not the private schools and tutoring that impacted the test scores... It's the knowledge and talent caused by those things...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  It's weird that people who complain about these things don't complain about legacy applications when: - they're a practice originally designed to keep up out Jews and Catholics (not in a veiled "politically correct" way, that's what they were openly for: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549) - the legacies they uphold were established at a time where blacks couldn't even go to the same schools are whites. Ruby Bridges is in only now her 60s after desegregating a black elementary school. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) It really seems if this is about equality in schooling, you wouldn't see one complaint without the other.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    Weird that basically every legacy application is by whites yet no one calls it racist. You'd think that people against racism would be all over this if they actually cared about minorities. Funny how this cuts both ways. Or maybe we're just replying to what the article said and not everything that's happened since the beginning of time.
    - BoorishBears 4y ago
      I didn't realize Twilio was modifying SAT scores? It sounds to me like this was more about martyring yourself than anything on topic.
- atoav 4y ago
  I mean this might have to do with something I would call socioeconomic background more than the color of someone's skin. The french philosopher Pierre Bourdieu discribed multiple forms of "capital" any individual can accumulate in order to get successful: - economic capital (actual money, houses etc) - social capital (the contacts you have to people who can help you out) - symbolic capital (your ability to simulate a certain socioeconomic status in a way so others belive you are also from their class of society — so the way you look, dress, speak, what music you listen to etc) - cultural capital (the actual knowledge you accumulated by learning, reading, practise etc) The more any individual has in each of these categories the easier success is going to be for them. Many of these categories have a huge inherited part as well. Even if your parents are poor academics for example they might teach you how to speak a certain upperclass language, have good contacts and cultural capital for example. Black people in the US have had a (much, much) worse starting point in all of these capital forms and some of those deficits will effectively bar anybody from that socioeconomic background from studying, even if they are a very talented person. Quotas like these are the recognition that existing cultural biases are instutionalized and you have to counterbalance them to a degree, just to make them fair. If you ran a marathon and the guy next to you was not only held back for 30 minutes at the start, but also had to carry a bag of bricks and learn a new language while running (and none of that by his own choice), you'd hardly complain if the guy's run was judged in a different way than yours, or would you? This is essentially what something like this boils down to. People from a poor socioeconomic background cannot lean onto their or their parents contacts (lack of social capital), they cannot lean on their or their parents money (lack of exonomical capital), they cannot lean on their sophisticated way of expression (lack of symbolic capital) — they in fact have to learn that new way of expressing themselves if they want to be taken seriously — and they cannot lean onto their cultural capital as people from rich educated families will naturally have a headstart here as well. Societies with less steep socioeconomic divides tend to be safer, more productive and happier, so it is only rational.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    So, if you say that race-based policies are needed to smooth out differences in socioeconomic background, why not abandon them in favor of criteria based on actual socioeconomic background of the involved person? Thus switching a very loose proxy for the real deal? The current race-based policies consider Obama's daughters "marginalized" and an Ukrainian orphan "privileged". That is sort of awful and illogical.
dgrin91 4y ago
Why is this being flagged? Legitimate question. I'm pretty surprised that the CEO said this. I'm curious what the actual impact of this is.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I flagged it because it's political hot air. One can be suspicious of Twilio and want to know more about what Jeff meant without (as my Aussie friends say) "chucking a wobbly".
  - kergonath 4y ago
    I am very suspicious of people who say everyone need to just chill out and ignore a fundamental issue that they personally do not deem fundamental enough. Further comments would be useful indeed, but the document is explicit enough as is.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      What actions did Twilio take, specifically, that you can glean from the expression "with an antiracist lens". That could be anything from "fire white folks" to execs sitting in chairs saying, "this is anti racist, right?" Whole doing nothing different so they can pat themselves on the back. Unless you think the very concept of antiracism is a problem.
      - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
        Why does Twilio need to perform it's layoffs "with an antiracist lens"?
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Being aware of historical iniquities and looking for places where you are continuing them. It's about acting with intentionality - criticizing yourself and applying multiple perspectives.
atdrummond 4y ago
All I know is that from the various (now former) Twilio employees I’ve met this week who are looking for jobs the company lost some immense talent. There are some absolute gems available if you or your business has openings.
socialismisok 4y ago
This is a pretty partisan political piece seizing on a sentence fragment at the end of a press release. I understand the desire to want to know more here, like, what did Jeff Lawson mean specifically? Call me crazy, but maybe the right thing to do is not get bent totally out of shape over a press release and instead just ask, "Jeff, what did you mean by an antiracist lens? Could you explain more about that?"
- socialismisok 4y ago
  HN morning crowd apparently doesn't like the idea of slowing down and asking for reasoning and data. The point I'm making is that press releases around layoffs are often rushed, and might not actually represent the whole story. Maybe we shouldnt call someone guilty before they get a chance to elaborate?
  - trention 4y ago
    There are only 2 reasons to put this exact wording in your press release: 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.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Or, and hear me out, you are trying to be conscious of the fact that layoffs have historically got marginalized communities harder, and you were in a rush to write something that acknowledged that.
      - trention 4y ago
        [flagged]
        socialismisok 4y ago
        There's a long thread in my comment history of me being comfortable having a reasoned discussion about socialism or communism, and how folks tend to dismiss me without making any effort to understand. I'd be happy to have a discussion here with you as well, if you'd like to engage in some intellectual exchange. That said, it does seem to me you are applying the same process to both me and this press release - seeing a few words and making some sweeping assumptions about what is behind those words. Let me know if that's not the case or if I've misread you.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> They could also have just cooked up some ostensibly race-neutral metric that resulted in their desired outcome, […]! The EEOC even offers advice to business owners on how to arrange such a scheme: >> If certain groups of employees are affected more than other groups, determine if you can adjust your layoff/RIF selection criteria to limit the impact on those groups, while still meeting your business's needs. >> For example, you decide to lay off the most recently hired employees due to budget constraints. Female employees account for 30% of your workforce and 85% of the employees scheduled for layoff. Determine whether you can adjust your layoff criteria in a way that allows you to meet your financial goals while also reducing the impact on female employees. For example, you might determine whether alternative layoff criteria, such as employees' profitability, productivity or expertise, would enable you to reach the desired financial outcome and result in the layoff of fewer female employees. That’s nuts. The US government literally suggests companies to cook up fake metrics to achieve desired results.
- hberg5 4y ago
  that’s the EEOC’s MO, and the behavior of most bureaucracies like the IRS, they signal extralegal expectations and dare you to challenge them on it, the system working as intended
- ivalm 4y ago
  Not fake but better metrics. There are always many different metrics that are available and the choice of metric is often arbitrary. What EEOC is doing is pointing out that if a metric disproportionally affects some protected category then it is likely a flawed metric for the use case. Again, since there are many different metrics that are available, you can just try another one until you find one that satisfies both your business and diversity needs.
  - Ferrotin 4y ago
    In fact it really is not likely flawed. The only way you ever get proportionate presence in anything is if there’s a finger on the scale.
kergonath 4y ago
That is insane. Firing someone because of their skin colour is racist, by definition. There is no way to present that as somehow “anti-racist”. The adjective “Orwellian” is over-used these days, but this literally is “some are more equal than others”. Up there in terms of hypocrisy with “freedom is slavery”. Admitting to this in writing is bonkers. I hope they’ll get the hundred lawsuits.
- tootie 4y ago
  That's unbelievably obtuse. There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > That's unbelievably obtuse. How so? A policy that gives better or worse treatment to someone because of a perceived “race” (which is itself non-sense all in the case of homo sapiens) IS racist. Are you disagreeing with that? We can argue about whether we like it the way it is, whether it is punching up or down, or whether it is a good kind of racism, but there is no way around the fact that this is racism. > There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. > In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. Not at all. The story is about oppressed turning oppressors in the name of some form of ostensibly egalitarian ideology. As has happened countless times through History. It is a warning about what happens when you start using your enemy’s weapons: you become the enemy and betray your ideals. We cannot fight racism with racism, or else we just end up another shade of racists. > The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male. That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists.
    - 4y ago
jacooper 4y ago
The obsession with race and having people from every race to the point people that aren't fit for the position get it because they are "marginalized" is just crazy in the US. You should hire based on talent and experience. And if the company is all white, then be it, that's the market. Of course that way doesn't fix racism, but the US way also doesn't.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  There are also a whole lot of white people who have had very few advantages in life who don’t get the benefits of progressive support because they don’t look different in a way that lets people put an easy label on them.
  - hallway_monitor 4y ago
    America has far more poor white people than poor non-white people. It seems like this should be obvious but apparently is not.
    - thethirdone 4y ago
      If you define poor as "below the poverty line" and white people as "white non-hispanic", this is not true. There are more white hispanics below the poverty line than white non-hispanics. Typically when people are using the phrase "white people", they are not including latinos so I would rate "America has far more poor white people than poor non-white people" mostly false. Also I really hate how the standard demographics in the US are WHITE, BLACK, ASIAN, or OTHER with an additional binary of HISPANIC or NON-HISPANIC.
      - silisili 4y ago
        I'm not attempting to refute your claim, just adding an anecdote. I recently moved to a majority hispanic area, 80ish percent. It was a bit of culture shock for me in a lot of ways, one of which is you better have cash. Everyone I've hired to do anything will only take cash. If you offer a check, they'll sometimes say no, sometimes say OK, but I have to add tax. Not one would accept a credit card. Plumbers, electricians, handymen, guys with 50k dollar trucks and 80k dollar skid steers. I don't mean to intend to paint this as a solely hispanic thing, this is just the first place I've lived that functions that way. The guy who did our floor was white, and made the same demands in fact. It occurred to me there's likely a not insignificant amount of people making 6 figures who are according to the government, below the poverty line.
anonymoushn 4y ago
Wow, this is much more exciting than the time Thoughtworks sent me an email saying their role was only open to non-male candidates.
- fasteddie31003 4y ago
  I have my doubts that any company would be dumb enough to do this.
  - anonymoushn 4y ago
    I can forward you the email if you like :)
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      Consider forwarding it to a lawyer?
  - aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
    As if the entire company signed off on the HR clown's email.
throwaway894345 4y ago
> I am no great fan of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title VII in the workplace. I will not defend its activities, now or ever. I also happen to think that Title VII and the idea of disparate racial impact it spawned, have been very corrosive to American legal traditions — for example, it is possible for plaintiffs in civil rights suits to ignore a respondent’s intent and argue discrimination based on disparity alone. That makes it very difficult to run companies on merit, because any unintentional “disparate impact” against a protected class (or even perceived disparate impact) could be cause for harassment by the EEOC, which files thousands of suits annually. But if there were ever a slam dunk case of race-based labor discrimination, admitted to in official communications, this is it. I mean, come on; they’re bragging about it! I think the way Title VII has contributed to a competitive DEI culture is under-discussed. Specifically, because the EEOC has this unfalsifiable notion of discrimination, it drives companies to compete on "seeming undiscriminatory" (because each company has to show that it is doing better than the median, which has a "no child left behind" effect of raising the median) which mostly amounts to increasingly ridiculous shenanigans while trying to meet the standard set by the letter of the law. For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race. EDIT: Of course this submission got flagged. :eye-roll:
- evilsnoopi3 4y ago
  > For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race. This assumes worker pipelines are fixed which, practically, they aren't. You can increase flows to the pipeline by increasing outreach or incentivizing attainable qualifications. You can also seek trainees rather than day 1 contributors, which admittedly _is_ "relax[ing] qualification requirements" but has the trade-off of providing more purpose-fit employees when they do start contributing.
trention 4y ago
Race-based firings are illegal and every company hires attorneys to cook the process so that it can pass legal muster. That's the value of fake "diversity" (excluding the only diversity that matters, diversity of opinion - which is effectively forbidden by every large corporation in the states on any topic that is even remotely sensitive).
colechristensen 4y ago
This just adds fuel to a really stupid fire. There are real racists and white suprematists out there. By firing people because they’re white and pretending it’s progressive, you recruit for the actual racists. Progressive causes have some of the best opportunities right now to win and make actual change. Instead they’re alienating people as much as is possible by taking their issues to ridiculous extremes.
- emerged 4y ago
  It genuinely feels like the end game is to wish racists into existence all to perpetuate a political ideology which has supplanted the will to religion.
  - suoduandao2 4y ago
    One of my hobbies is writing conspiracy theories that nobody wants to believe but that have just enough resonance with reality to be hard to ignore. I'm currently working on one that posits a rogue group of white supremacists within America's three letter agencies planning their own 'colour revolution' for America, with white being the colour of choice. Currently they'd be just using public propaganda to stoke resentment, but next economic downturn, who knows...
libria 4y ago
> > our layoffs [...] were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens > the Chief Executive of a publicly-traded company seems to have admitted [...] that he conducted race-based layoffs The opposite. Lawson is trying to say he conducted a completely fair race-neutral layoff. Part of this process included remaining cognizant of any biases against particular races in order keep it neutral. Whether that's what took place is up to debate, but he certainly didn't claim it was a race-based layoff and saying so without any numbers or even internal anecdotes is dishonest journalism. I mean, he could omitted the virtue-signalling and everyone would assume it's just your typical recession-layoff that's been trending.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Let's look at the full quote: > 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. This doesn't seem to suggest a concern about biases in the layoff process, it strongly seems like he's arguing that "marginalized communities" depend more on these jobs than "unmarginalized communities". Indeed, if he was talking about biases in the layoff process, why would he say "marginalized communities"? I don't even know what that means in that context. Biases in the layoff process affect the individuals laid off. Of course, it also affects those individuals' broader communities, but factoring those communities into the calculus is the definition of biasing the decision (putting aside the implicit assumption that individuals are necessarily members of race-based communities).
- throwoutway 4y ago
  There’s two ends of the spectrum. Everyone thinks this is illegal and takes the pessimistic view, while you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum. Calling the majority of commenters/journalists dishonest when you take an equally strident one-sided view is dissonant at best
  - libria 4y ago
dang 4y ago
Recent and related: Twilio CEO: Layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32855380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32855380 - Sept 2022 (68 comments) Twilio promises ‘anti-racist’ layoffs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32849920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32849920 - Sept 2022 (4 comments) Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837802 - Sept 2022 (436 comments) A message from Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson: 11% workforce cut - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837345 - Sept 2022 (197 comments) Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 - Sept 2022 (104 comments)
olliej 4y ago
I recognize that racism is a major issue in tech, it's structurally dominated by white men - and while that is slowly changing people (especially larger companies where significant racial biases in the employee database are much stronger indications of employment bias than in smaller companies[1]), but no even in that environment you can't say we will hire/fire with the specific intent of getting a specific racial mix. Whether that mix be the good old white supremacist one, or an intentionally equal one. Firing would seem to not be something where you could reasonably do any form of intentional equalisation w/o it being pretty overt, and illegal, racial bias. The way to correct the racial balance in a company (again one large enough for statistics of employee vs national or regional racial make up to be relevant), is to first address your hiring practices and college or university outreach. Because the reality is people are still more likely to get to the interview stage via nepotism: one of your employees gets a hiring or intern suggestion from their old PI, your employees go back to the school they went to for career fair/outreach programs. Historically for example tech companies did very little outreach at any of the HBCUs or community colleges, which for historical (often racist) reasons are where the major you get a much more representative of society group of people. Aside from anything else that not only means talented people from those schools are less likely to get the experience from, say, interning, but also it means you're missing out on the talent that didn't get lucky enough in where they were born or who their parents were. What I'm trying to say is that I do not believe you can in any way fire your way to a less racist company, but you can do a lot to fix it by making sure your hiring process isn't automatically removing swathes of the population due not to explicit racism but simply habit and the path of least resistance. You shouldn't be in a position where you are saying yes or no about a person simply because of their race, and saying yes or no simply because of the school they went to is at a gross statistical level fairly equivalent to doing just that. [1] Because statistics
- PubliusMI 4y ago
  >nepotism: one of your employees gets a hiring or intern suggestion from their old PI Not nepotism >your employees go back to the school they went to for career fair/outreach programs Also not nepotism
  - 4y ago
pantojax45 4y ago
My read was that Twilio did exactly what EEOC suggested. They ensured that their layoffs did not disproportionately affect minority groups. Anti racist/anti oppression does not mean “anti white”.
closetkantian 4y ago
An alien reading articles and comments on hacker news would probably assume that most racism is actually directed at white people.
- 0xy 4y ago
  When it comes to university selection criteria for example, Asians and white people are indeed the most discriminated against. An Asian or white person must score substantially higher than a Hispanic or black person to achieve entrance into the same university.
  - closetkantian 4y ago
    I'm actually a college admissions consultant and this doesn't really tell the whole story. For one, university admissions at selective colleges are holistic, so "scores" doesn't really mean very much, especially since many schools are now test optional. You also lump Asians and white people together in a way that's inaccurate. In fact, by some accounts, white people are the largest beneficiaries of current college admissions practices at top universities, thanks to legacy admissions practices / donations, a preference for athletes, and race-based admissions policies. I recognize the last two of these may seem counterintuitive, so I'll explain. With regards to athletics, the sports represented at top schools lean heavily towards those played in affluent, predominately white areas — think squash, crew and tennis. With regards to race-based admissions, yes Hispanics and black people benefit (to be fair, they almost never benefit from legacy), but the real "victims" are Asians, whose representation at Ivy League schools has remained flat since around 1990, in spite of the fact that the Asian American population has almost tripled over the same time period.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Correct. Considering the make up of SV companies, it is very likely that this was just anti-Asian racism instead
_8j50 4y ago
Aaaaaaaaaaa! Can we unite as one race and say that popup box in the middle of the page sucks!? Took me a while until I was forced to actually read it to dismiss it. For twilio, I disagree, but, I am sure they will argue it isn't unequal treatment since hiring can also be done based on race (equity vs equality, reverse affirmative action??). Obviously making reparations by artificially harming others based on race is really fucked up. But I suspect like most corporate diversity crap it is calculated to make the right people happy and make profit.
kjellsbells 4y ago
The writer of this article has a massive disdain for all things progressive, which makes his writing style a misery to read amongst all the sophomoric posturing. Its like meeting someone who only wants to debate, not converse. That said, if what Twilio did is what is claimed, its a massive, ridiculous unforced error.
LoganDark 4y ago
Ahhh, here it is, tokenism at its finest.
hackerlight 4y ago
> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Can racist clowns like this please consider downstream effects. You're doing things that will elect Republicans and bring about fascism. Please, stop with the anti-egalitarian wokeness that indirectly harms the groups you're pretending to support. Open your borders, build housing, build infrastructure in poor communities, elect Democrats. Stop the equal outcome illiberalism and virtue signalling.

116 points by lxm 4y ago

America is such a racist country that even when they try to stop being racist they do it in the most racist way possible. >You're black and applying to college? You're obviously stupid [0] and we'll add 200 SAT points to your application. Oh no, we'd never add points on means based testing, we'd end up having the poors in Harvard if we did. Why are you asking? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idpevmeoK1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idpevmeoK1A

flatiron 4y ago
Meritocracy has its issues as well. A lot of people got 200 points from private schools and tutoring that may not be available to a lot of the disenfranchised.
- telotortium 4y ago
  I would agree, but it's not like Harvard will refrain from preferring black candidates from elite private schools, where the staff definitely know how to direct students to tutoring for SAT, over white students from those same schools.
- pookha 4y ago
  Why should anyone be discriminated against strictly by skin color? That's insane and racist.
  - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
    Equality is out, equity is in.
- PubliusMI 4y ago
  It's not the private schools and tutoring that impacted the test scores... It's the knowledge and talent caused by those things...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
BoorishBears 4y ago
It's weird that people who complain about these things don't complain about legacy applications when: - they're a practice originally designed to keep up out Jews and Catholics (not in a veiled "politically correct" way, that's what they were openly for: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549) - the legacies they uphold were established at a time where blacks couldn't even go to the same schools are whites. Ruby Bridges is in only now her 60s after desegregating a black elementary school. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges) It really seems if this is about equality in schooling, you wouldn't see one complaint without the other.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Weird that basically every legacy application is by whites yet no one calls it racist. You'd think that people against racism would be all over this if they actually cared about minorities. Funny how this cuts both ways. Or maybe we're just replying to what the article said and not everything that's happened since the beginning of time.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I didn't realize Twilio was modifying SAT scores? It sounds to me like this was more about martyring yourself than anything on topic.
atoav 4y ago
I mean this might have to do with something I would call socioeconomic background more than the color of someone's skin. The french philosopher Pierre Bourdieu discribed multiple forms of "capital" any individual can accumulate in order to get successful: - economic capital (actual money, houses etc) - social capital (the contacts you have to people who can help you out) - symbolic capital (your ability to simulate a certain socioeconomic status in a way so others belive you are also from their class of society — so the way you look, dress, speak, what music you listen to etc) - cultural capital (the actual knowledge you accumulated by learning, reading, practise etc) The more any individual has in each of these categories the easier success is going to be for them. Many of these categories have a huge inherited part as well. Even if your parents are poor academics for example they might teach you how to speak a certain upperclass language, have good contacts and cultural capital for example. Black people in the US have had a (much, much) worse starting point in all of these capital forms and some of those deficits will effectively bar anybody from that socioeconomic background from studying, even if they are a very talented person. Quotas like these are the recognition that existing cultural biases are instutionalized and you have to counterbalance them to a degree, just to make them fair. If you ran a marathon and the guy next to you was not only held back for 30 minutes at the start, but also had to carry a bag of bricks and learn a new language while running (and none of that by his own choice), you'd hardly complain if the guy's run was judged in a different way than yours, or would you? This is essentially what something like this boils down to. People from a poor socioeconomic background cannot lean onto their or their parents contacts (lack of social capital), they cannot lean on their or their parents money (lack of exonomical capital), they cannot lean on their sophisticated way of expression (lack of symbolic capital) — they in fact have to learn that new way of expressing themselves if they want to be taken seriously — and they cannot lean onto their cultural capital as people from rich educated families will naturally have a headstart here as well. Societies with less steep socioeconomic divides tend to be safer, more productive and happier, so it is only rational.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  So, if you say that race-based policies are needed to smooth out differences in socioeconomic background, why not abandon them in favor of criteria based on actual socioeconomic background of the involved person? Thus switching a very loose proxy for the real deal? The current race-based policies consider Obama's daughters "marginalized" and an Ukrainian orphan "privileged". That is sort of awful and illogical.

dgrin91 4y ago

Why is this being flagged? Legitimate question. I'm pretty surprised that the CEO said this. I'm curious what the actual impact of this is.

socialismisok 4y ago
I flagged it because it's political hot air. One can be suspicious of Twilio and want to know more about what Jeff meant without (as my Aussie friends say) "chucking a wobbly".
- kergonath 4y ago
  I am very suspicious of people who say everyone need to just chill out and ignore a fundamental issue that they personally do not deem fundamental enough. Further comments would be useful indeed, but the document is explicit enough as is.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    What actions did Twilio take, specifically, that you can glean from the expression "with an antiracist lens". That could be anything from "fire white folks" to execs sitting in chairs saying, "this is anti racist, right?" Whole doing nothing different so they can pat themselves on the back. Unless you think the very concept of antiracism is a problem.
    - ThrowawayTestr 4y ago
      Why does Twilio need to perform it's layoffs "with an antiracist lens"?
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Being aware of historical iniquities and looking for places where you are continuing them. It's about acting with intentionality - criticizing yourself and applying multiple perspectives.

atdrummond 4y ago

All I know is that from the various (now former) Twilio employees I’ve met this week who are looking for jobs the company lost some immense talent. There are some absolute gems available if you or your business has openings.

socialismisok 4y ago

This is a pretty partisan political piece seizing on a sentence fragment at the end of a press release. I understand the desire to want to know more here, like, what did Jeff Lawson mean specifically? Call me crazy, but maybe the right thing to do is not get bent totally out of shape over a press release and instead just ask, "Jeff, what did you mean by an antiracist lens? Could you explain more about that?"

socialismisok 4y ago
HN morning crowd apparently doesn't like the idea of slowing down and asking for reasoning and data. The point I'm making is that press releases around layoffs are often rushed, and might not actually represent the whole story. Maybe we shouldnt call someone guilty before they get a chance to elaborate?
- trention 4y ago
  There are only 2 reasons to put this exact wording in your press release: 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.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Or, and hear me out, you are trying to be conscious of the fact that layoffs have historically got marginalized communities harder, and you were in a rush to write something that acknowledged that.
    - trention 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        There's a long thread in my comment history of me being comfortable having a reasoned discussion about socialism or communism, and how folks tend to dismiss me without making any effort to understand. I'd be happy to have a discussion here with you as well, if you'd like to engage in some intellectual exchange. That said, it does seem to me you are applying the same process to both me and this press release - seeing a few words and making some sweeping assumptions about what is behind those words. Let me know if that's not the case or if I've misread you.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

> They could also have just cooked up some ostensibly race-neutral metric that resulted in their desired outcome, […]! The EEOC even offers advice to business owners on how to arrange such a scheme: >> If certain groups of employees are affected more than other groups, determine if you can adjust your layoff/RIF selection criteria to limit the impact on those groups, while still meeting your business's needs. >> For example, you decide to lay off the most recently hired employees due to budget constraints. Female employees account for 30% of your workforce and 85% of the employees scheduled for layoff. Determine whether you can adjust your layoff criteria in a way that allows you to meet your financial goals while also reducing the impact on female employees. For example, you might determine whether alternative layoff criteria, such as employees' profitability, productivity or expertise, would enable you to reach the desired financial outcome and result in the layoff of fewer female employees. That’s nuts. The US government literally suggests companies to cook up fake metrics to achieve desired results.

hberg5 4y ago
that’s the EEOC’s MO, and the behavior of most bureaucracies like the IRS, they signal extralegal expectations and dare you to challenge them on it, the system working as intended
ivalm 4y ago
Not fake but better metrics. There are always many different metrics that are available and the choice of metric is often arbitrary. What EEOC is doing is pointing out that if a metric disproportionally affects some protected category then it is likely a flawed metric for the use case. Again, since there are many different metrics that are available, you can just try another one until you find one that satisfies both your business and diversity needs.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  In fact it really is not likely flawed. The only way you ever get proportionate presence in anything is if there’s a finger on the scale.

kergonath 4y ago

That is insane. Firing someone because of their skin colour is racist, by definition. There is no way to present that as somehow “anti-racist”. The adjective “Orwellian” is over-used these days, but this literally is “some are more equal than others”. Up there in terms of hypocrisy with “freedom is slavery”. Admitting to this in writing is bonkers. I hope they’ll get the hundred lawsuits.

tootie 4y ago
That's unbelievably obtuse. There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > That's unbelievably obtuse. How so? A policy that gives better or worse treatment to someone because of a perceived “race” (which is itself non-sense all in the case of homo sapiens) IS racist. Are you disagreeing with that? We can argue about whether we like it the way it is, whether it is punching up or down, or whether it is a good kind of racism, but there is no way around the fact that this is racism. > There are several marginalized groups that are still vastly underrepresented in business. Giving them a modicum of preference in hiring and firing decisions is barely making the gap smaller. So you are in fact saying that this is a good kind of racism, justified by History and the current socio-economical situation. > In Animal Farm they Orwell was satirizing oligarchy. Not at all. The story is about oppressed turning oppressors in the name of some form of ostensibly egalitarian ideology. As has happened countless times through History. It is a warning about what happens when you start using your enemy’s weapons: you become the enemy and betray your ideals. We cannot fight racism with racism, or else we just end up another shade of racists. > The oligarchy in America is still very much white and male. That is very much a problem. You are not going to solve it by firing white people. This will just give more ammunition to populists.
  - 4y ago

jacooper 4y ago

The obsession with race and having people from every race to the point people that aren't fit for the position get it because they are "marginalized" is just crazy in the US. You should hire based on talent and experience. And if the company is all white, then be it, that's the market. Of course that way doesn't fix racism, but the US way also doesn't.

colechristensen 4y ago
There are also a whole lot of white people who have had very few advantages in life who don’t get the benefits of progressive support because they don’t look different in a way that lets people put an easy label on them.
- hallway_monitor 4y ago
  America has far more poor white people than poor non-white people. It seems like this should be obvious but apparently is not.
  - thethirdone 4y ago
    If you define poor as "below the poverty line" and white people as "white non-hispanic", this is not true. There are more white hispanics below the poverty line than white non-hispanics. Typically when people are using the phrase "white people", they are not including latinos so I would rate "America has far more poor white people than poor non-white people" mostly false. Also I really hate how the standard demographics in the US are WHITE, BLACK, ASIAN, or OTHER with an additional binary of HISPANIC or NON-HISPANIC.
    - silisili 4y ago
      I'm not attempting to refute your claim, just adding an anecdote. I recently moved to a majority hispanic area, 80ish percent. It was a bit of culture shock for me in a lot of ways, one of which is you better have cash. Everyone I've hired to do anything will only take cash. If you offer a check, they'll sometimes say no, sometimes say OK, but I have to add tax. Not one would accept a credit card. Plumbers, electricians, handymen, guys with 50k dollar trucks and 80k dollar skid steers. I don't mean to intend to paint this as a solely hispanic thing, this is just the first place I've lived that functions that way. The guy who did our floor was white, and made the same demands in fact. It occurred to me there's likely a not insignificant amount of people making 6 figures who are according to the government, below the poverty line.

anonymoushn 4y ago

Wow, this is much more exciting than the time Thoughtworks sent me an email saying their role was only open to non-male candidates.

fasteddie31003 4y ago
I have my doubts that any company would be dumb enough to do this.
- anonymoushn 4y ago
  I can forward you the email if you like :)
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    Consider forwarding it to a lawyer?
- aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
  As if the entire company signed off on the HR clown's email.

throwaway894345 4y ago

> I am no great fan of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces Title VII in the workplace. I will not defend its activities, now or ever. I also happen to think that Title VII and the idea of disparate racial impact it spawned, have been very corrosive to American legal traditions — for example, it is possible for plaintiffs in civil rights suits to ignore a respondent’s intent and argue discrimination based on disparity alone. That makes it very difficult to run companies on merit, because any unintentional “disparate impact” against a protected class (or even perceived disparate impact) could be cause for harassment by the EEOC, which files thousands of suits annually. But if there were ever a slam dunk case of race-based labor discrimination, admitted to in official communications, this is it. I mean, come on; they’re bragging about it! I think the way Title VII has contributed to a competitive DEI culture is under-discussed. Specifically, because the EEOC has this unfalsifiable notion of discrimination, it drives companies to compete on "seeming undiscriminatory" (because each company has to show that it is doing better than the median, which has a "no child left behind" effect of raising the median) which mostly amounts to increasingly ridiculous shenanigans while trying to meet the standard set by the letter of the law. For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race. EDIT: Of course this submission got flagged. :eye-roll:

evilsnoopi3 4y ago
> For example, the structure of EEOC Title VII inquisitions pressures companies to search extra hard to hire diverse candidates from a fixed size pipeline (the only way to make this work is to relax qualification requirements while pretending qualification requirements aren't relaxed, and maybe to fire any employees who fail to play along), but they can only go so far before they run up against the letter of the law which prohibits them from, say, openly firing people for their race. This assumes worker pipelines are fixed which, practically, they aren't. You can increase flows to the pipeline by increasing outreach or incentivizing attainable qualifications. You can also seek trainees rather than day 1 contributors, which admittedly _is_ "relax[ing] qualification requirements" but has the trade-off of providing more purpose-fit employees when they do start contributing.

trention 4y ago

Race-based firings are illegal and every company hires attorneys to cook the process so that it can pass legal muster. That's the value of fake "diversity" (excluding the only diversity that matters, diversity of opinion - which is effectively forbidden by every large corporation in the states on any topic that is even remotely sensitive).

colechristensen 4y ago

This just adds fuel to a really stupid fire. There are real racists and white suprematists out there. By firing people because they’re white and pretending it’s progressive, you recruit for the actual racists. Progressive causes have some of the best opportunities right now to win and make actual change. Instead they’re alienating people as much as is possible by taking their issues to ridiculous extremes.

emerged 4y ago
It genuinely feels like the end game is to wish racists into existence all to perpetuate a political ideology which has supplanted the will to religion.
- suoduandao2 4y ago
  One of my hobbies is writing conspiracy theories that nobody wants to believe but that have just enough resonance with reality to be hard to ignore. I'm currently working on one that posits a rogue group of white supremacists within America's three letter agencies planning their own 'colour revolution' for America, with white being the colour of choice. Currently they'd be just using public propaganda to stoke resentment, but next economic downturn, who knows...

libria 4y ago

> > our layoffs [...] were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens > the Chief Executive of a publicly-traded company seems to have admitted [...] that he conducted race-based layoffs The opposite. Lawson is trying to say he conducted a completely fair race-neutral layoff. Part of this process included remaining cognizant of any biases against particular races in order keep it neutral. Whether that's what took place is up to debate, but he certainly didn't claim it was a race-based layoff and saying so without any numbers or even internal anecdotes is dishonest journalism. I mean, he could omitted the virtue-signalling and everyone would assume it's just your typical recession-layoff that's been trending.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Let's look at the full quote: > 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. This doesn't seem to suggest a concern about biases in the layoff process, it strongly seems like he's arguing that "marginalized communities" depend more on these jobs than "unmarginalized communities". Indeed, if he was talking about biases in the layoff process, why would he say "marginalized communities"? I don't even know what that means in that context. Biases in the layoff process affect the individuals laid off. Of course, it also affects those individuals' broader communities, but factoring those communities into the calculus is the definition of biasing the decision (putting aside the implicit assumption that individuals are necessarily members of race-based communities).
throwoutway 4y ago
There’s two ends of the spectrum. Everyone thinks this is illegal and takes the pessimistic view, while you’re giving the CEO the most optimistic end of the spectrum. Calling the majority of commenters/journalists dishonest when you take an equally strident one-sided view is dissonant at best
- libria 4y ago

dang 4y ago

Recent and related: Twilio CEO: Layoffs were carried out through an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32855380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32855380 - Sept 2022 (68 comments) Twilio promises ‘anti-racist’ layoffs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32849920 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32849920 - Sept 2022 (4 comments) Twilio to lay off 11% of workforce - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837802 - Sept 2022 (436 comments) A message from Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson: 11% workforce cut - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837345 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837345 - Sept 2022 (197 comments) Twilio cutting 11% – Letter from CEO [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32837250 - Sept 2022 (104 comments)

olliej 4y ago

I recognize that racism is a major issue in tech, it's structurally dominated by white men - and while that is slowly changing people (especially larger companies where significant racial biases in the employee database are much stronger indications of employment bias than in smaller companies[1]), but no even in that environment you can't say we will hire/fire with the specific intent of getting a specific racial mix. Whether that mix be the good old white supremacist one, or an intentionally equal one. Firing would seem to not be something where you could reasonably do any form of intentional equalisation w/o it being pretty overt, and illegal, racial bias. The way to correct the racial balance in a company (again one large enough for statistics of employee vs national or regional racial make up to be relevant), is to first address your hiring practices and college or university outreach. Because the reality is people are still more likely to get to the interview stage via nepotism: one of your employees gets a hiring or intern suggestion from their old PI, your employees go back to the school they went to for career fair/outreach programs. Historically for example tech companies did very little outreach at any of the HBCUs or community colleges, which for historical (often racist) reasons are where the major you get a much more representative of society group of people. Aside from anything else that not only means talented people from those schools are less likely to get the experience from, say, interning, but also it means you're missing out on the talent that didn't get lucky enough in where they were born or who their parents were. What I'm trying to say is that I do not believe you can in any way fire your way to a less racist company, but you can do a lot to fix it by making sure your hiring process isn't automatically removing swathes of the population due not to explicit racism but simply habit and the path of least resistance. You shouldn't be in a position where you are saying yes or no about a person simply because of their race, and saying yes or no simply because of the school they went to is at a gross statistical level fairly equivalent to doing just that. [1] Because statistics

PubliusMI 4y ago
>nepotism: one of your employees gets a hiring or intern suggestion from their old PI Not nepotism >your employees go back to the school they went to for career fair/outreach programs Also not nepotism
- 4y ago

pantojax45 4y ago

My read was that Twilio did exactly what EEOC suggested. They ensured that their layoffs did not disproportionately affect minority groups. Anti racist/anti oppression does not mean “anti white”.

closetkantian 4y ago

An alien reading articles and comments on hacker news would probably assume that most racism is actually directed at white people.

0xy 4y ago
When it comes to university selection criteria for example, Asians and white people are indeed the most discriminated against. An Asian or white person must score substantially higher than a Hispanic or black person to achieve entrance into the same university.
- closetkantian 4y ago
  I'm actually a college admissions consultant and this doesn't really tell the whole story. For one, university admissions at selective colleges are holistic, so "scores" doesn't really mean very much, especially since many schools are now test optional. You also lump Asians and white people together in a way that's inaccurate. In fact, by some accounts, white people are the largest beneficiaries of current college admissions practices at top universities, thanks to legacy admissions practices / donations, a preference for athletes, and race-based admissions policies. I recognize the last two of these may seem counterintuitive, so I'll explain. With regards to athletics, the sports represented at top schools lean heavily towards those played in affluent, predominately white areas — think squash, crew and tennis. With regards to race-based admissions, yes Hispanics and black people benefit (to be fair, they almost never benefit from legacy), but the real "victims" are Asians, whose representation at Ivy League schools has remained flat since around 1990, in spite of the fact that the Asian American population has almost tripled over the same time period.
cuteboy19 4y ago
Correct. Considering the make up of SV companies, it is very likely that this was just anti-Asian racism instead

_8j50 4y ago

Aaaaaaaaaaa! Can we unite as one race and say that popup box in the middle of the page sucks!? Took me a while until I was forced to actually read it to dismiss it. For twilio, I disagree, but, I am sure they will argue it isn't unequal treatment since hiring can also be done based on race (equity vs equality, reverse affirmative action??). Obviously making reparations by artificially harming others based on race is really fucked up. But I suspect like most corporate diversity crap it is calculated to make the right people happy and make profit.

kjellsbells 4y ago

The writer of this article has a massive disdain for all things progressive, which makes his writing style a misery to read amongst all the sophomoric posturing. Its like meeting someone who only wants to debate, not converse. That said, if what Twilio did is what is claimed, its a massive, ridiculous unforced error.

LoganDark 4y ago

Ahhh, here it is, tokenism at its finest.

hackerlight 4y ago

> As you all know, we are committed to becoming an Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression company. Can racist clowns like this please consider downstream effects. You're doing things that will elect Republicans and bring about fascism. Please, stop with the anti-egalitarian wokeness that indirectly harms the groups you're pretending to support. Open your borders, build housing, build infrastructure in poor communities, elect Democrats. Stop the equal outcome illiberalism and virtue signalling.