[Spivak]

That’s the best part about recognizing that people of all different races, genders and creeds as people. They have exactly the same capacity to be shitty as anyone else. If this was a white executive this wouldn’t even move the needle but a black CEO is naturally held to a higher standard. Progress is measured by having their shitty behaviors reflect on them as an individual instead of their class.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Your comment seems to imply that anyone taking issue with Davis' racism is racist themselves, because they wouldn't otherwise notice if Davis were white. Please let me know if my interpretation of your comment is inaccurate, but if it isn't, then that's a pretty horrific rhetorical device that you're employing.

Personally, I noticed this part because — according to the article — Davis was outspoken about diversity, and indeed one of the explicit reasons for hiring him was for him to "promote diversity". That's the context — not his skin colour.

> Two years ago, the company brought in a blunt executive to make things move faster and to promote diversity. Then the problems began.

> Twitter employees who were aware of the episode said they expected better from Mr. Davis because of his outspokenness about diversity.

[Spivak]

Oh no, you can absolutely rake this guy over the coals for being a racist asshole.

Here's the problem:

> He is Black and Asian, and was the first Black executive at Twitter to report directly to the CEO.

Does this mention that he is outspoken about diversity? Or that he was brought on to promote diversity in the company in any way more than his existence? Nope, it's just a hey this guy is black and that is notable.

So this seems really out place.

> Since they've clearly gone for the "diversity" angle here, I decided to read more[0] about Davis.

Why does him being black and casually mentioning it in his bio warrant you digging into his background? Would you have done the same if it said he was the first first generation college graduate? Obviously not.

So this guy absolutely deserves to be criticized because he is outspoken about diversity while being racist. The crucial point is that this criticism is that is has nothing to do with his own race. But you only even thought to look for that because they mentioned he's black. There are a million ways this guy could be a terrible executive worthy of criticism but you definitely had one particular way in mind when you went digging.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I can't speak the original commenter, but what would have prompted my concern is this sentence:

> The company had touted him as a hard-charging leader who would detoxify the platform, but he was also criticized by some employees for what they said was a blunt, aggressive management style.

"Blunt" and "aggressive" are very often used as euphemisms for "rude and offensive, but in a way the author finds socially acceptable".

[yakshaving_jgt]

The authors of the article mentioned his race, but did not mention the race of any of the other nine Twitter staff listed in the article. So the authors of the article found the juxtaposition of his race and the criticisms against him to be noteworthy. Davis was also the only person mentioned in a critical light in the article.

> But you only even thought to look for that because they mentioned he's black.

You obviously have zero evidence for that.

[tmule]

“ If this was a white executive this wouldn’t even move the needle but a black CEO is naturally held to a higher standard.” There’s zero evidence of this. But spout away.