> Isn't it exactly what the author of the memo is saying though?

No, it doesn't seem that way to me.

> People at his work had nothing to say about police brutality against black people, so of course they were racist and supporting it.

No, I think he's saying that them having something to say about every news item imaginable except the one that resonated with him in that way (well, other than their dismissal of the protest) was alienating and distancing independent of what motivated it.

Maybe I misunderstood the article and the memo, but it felt very much like it was saying, “I have to deal with racists at work, like that time no one supported a political issue that I care a lot about”. Maybe it was more the article’s editorializing rather than the memo itself that gave this interpretation.

Nobody talks about the Stonewall riots at work, or how gays couldn't marry nationwide until years ago, but I don't assume they're anti-LGBT for failure to discuss these things.

Sitting here in Seattle working for a tech company where we have a Stonewall riot poster in every kitchen...

To be fair, I never accused the author of this (in fact, I'm one of those lazy people who frequently doesn't even read the article before jumping in and commenting).

Instead, I was merely raising the question about how people who don't attend such activities are viewed at their workplace and if it might negatively affect their standing at work, because I've seen this with other activities.

The author thinks coworkers are bigoted for this reason:

> Over the last 5 years I’ve heard co-workers spew hateful words about immigrants, boast unabashedly about gentrifying neighborhoods, mockingly imitate people who speak different languages, reject candidates of color without evidence because of ‘fit.’

Not for lack of attending some discussion sessions.