In this case, my point is not that this is legal or illegal. My point is that they probably ran this by their lawyers and at the very least those lawyers probably said "yeah, you have a reasonable case if this goes to court". If the lawyers said "yeah, this is definitely illegal, you are going to get sued, it's an easy case and you are going to lose", then sure, it's possible that Twilio decided to do this anyway, but I don't see that as likely. They probably have at least a legal theory on why this is permissible.
source: http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/white-papers/2020/the-...
My guess is someone sues and we'll all find out what exactly constitutes an anti-racist lens.
When you hire a man, it’s not like you don’t know they’re a man. The issue would be if you ONLY hire men (intentionally or not).
What do you do if you only care about performance in decisions, and when you are done you find out you fired more minorities than others?
Hilarious.
Who knows if this would have any effect, but most would agree the attempt is “anti-racist/anti-oppression”.
What else would it practically mean?
It also probably means they acknowledge that there are extensively proven biases against people of color throughout society, and tried to assure that people were not more likely to be laid off because they were a minority.
Just look at the majority of comments here shouting about how this is discriminatory realize how many people in the tech sector look at a black woman interviewing for a programming job and consciously or unconsciously assume she's gotten as far as she has based off diversity quotas or "woke hiring managers" etc...and thus question her credentials more, scrutinize her background more closely, are pickier about her answers to questions and her solutions to coding problems.
Edit: "people in tech think a black woman interviewing with them is incompetent because of diversity hire initiatives" != "diversity hire initiatives result in incompetent employees" just like all the kids believing in Santa don't make Santa real. Don't use my words to justify your "reverse discrimination" narratives. Outgroup candidats start from "less likely to get hired"; diversity initiatives help push them toward "fair chance in the hiring process."
This completely ignores that most companies have their own DEI and ESG based hiring initiatives.
Read through all the outraged comments here (and the other three discussions about this) about "woke" this and "diversity programs are illegal discrimination" that, and tell me with a straight face that because some companies have diversity programs, that minorities in tech have just as much of a fair shot at employment as a white worker.
Some woke CEO and HR, have come to the belief that they don't have to know anything about the person, their character, value to the company, or history. They can determine worthiness of the employee by a check box in "Race" or what pronouns the worker uses. I suppose its an easy way to express their own guilt without actually hurting themselves. Plus, it makes them a hero at those parties they go to.
Clearly if you name two factors, you are going to consider those two factors and actually be Racist and have Oppression of your own.
I'm just sick of the assumptions of people. I get the feeling when the lawsuits come, the internal e-mails in discovery will confirm my worst fears about how the CEO operated.
Layoffs are almost always unfair in some way. This just tilts the unfairness in another direction.
> 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.
What does it mean to layoff through an, "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens"?