Former CBS producer Trey Sherman posted a video to TikTok Oct. 29 detailing how every person of color on his team was laid off, including himself, while his white colleagues were instead reassigned to other areas of the company.
At first, it might appear to be cost-cutting collateral damage during a restructuring. But the racial dimension of these layoffs raises much bigger questions. If employees of color are consistently the ones losing their jobs, what appears to be neutral financial decision-making is really a strategic, silent way to reshape the workforce along racial lines.
Sherman, a Black man and former associate producer for Paramount’s CBS Evening News+, also worked for the network’s Race and Culture Unit — both of which were eliminated during the recent layoffs. In his viral TikTok video that has now garnered nearly one million likes, he recounted asking his white colleagues whether they were also being laid off. Each of them said no.
“If the outcome of that decision is racist, then the action was racist,” said Sherman.
CBS has not publicly responded to Sherman’s claims or released any clarifying data about who was let go from their company. Like many major networks, CBS has recently undergone rounds of layoffs as the industry struggles with declining ad revenue and streaming losses. But Sherman’s claim raises a deeper question about how “restructuring” functions in practice.
Companies like CBS can claim to value diversity and inclusion but when economic and political pressure arrive, those statements are tested in the real world. If certain employees are laid off and coincidentally happen to be people of color, it is not simply a decision made under financial pressure. It is about whose contributions are seen as valuable and whose are overlooked.
Data makes this pattern difficult to overlook. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Black and Hispanic workers were laid off or furloughed at a significantly higher rate than white workers, even in the same industries, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
When people of color are laid off, it takes longer for them to find new employment and their career trajectory suffers more than their white counterparts, according to BBC. In sectors like media, where opportunities are already concentrated and decision-making roles tend to favor white people, these layoffs can have a compounding effect. Fewer diverse voices are retained, fewer rise to positions of authority and the narrative control slowly shifts back to a predominantly white workforce.
It’s also worth considering that the federal workforce provided a more stable employment path for Black workers, helping build the Black middle class.
Under the current Trump administration, recent federal job cuts have devastated Black Americans, according to National Public Radio. These labor cuts show us that when “efficiency” becomes the cover-up, companies feel free to let their biases influence major employment decisions.
When a media company or private firm cuts staff in opaque ways, it signals that the structural removal of people of color is not simply accidental. It is enabled by systems that label layoffs as business decisions rather than racial equity issues.
When companies claim layoffs are about efficiency, the impact on racial equity is often invisible and hidden behind corporate jargon about “restructuring” or “streamlining.” The process is strategic in the sense that it appears impartial while maintaining systemic inequities.
This is why the conversation about transparency must go beyond simply telling employees why they are being laid off. Transparency alone is not a shield against structural bias — it can mask a deliberate pattern. Companies can present the criteria as neutral, use subjective evaluations or frame decisions around “performance” while disproportionately targeting employees of color.
The strategy is silent and frankly, smart. It keeps leadership protected from accusations of bias while producing outcomes that systematically remove Black people and other people of color from roles where they might challenge norms, influence content or lead teams.
The broader societal implications of more incoming layoffs cannot be overstated. Layoffs that disproportionately affect Black people and people of color reinforce historical inequities in employment, wages and career advancement, according to BBC. In media, where influence and visibility are directly tied to who gets to tell stories and make editorial decisions, the impact is magnified.
Accountability is critical, but it must be proactive. Companies cannot simply claim to be committed to equity — they need clear metrics, independent employment decisions and a culture where patterns of bias are actively addressed. Too often, companies treat transparency as a shield, releasing statements that sound neutral while achieving outcomes that quietly purge Black people and other people of color from the workforce.
When criticizing recent mass layoff decisions, the question is not just about budgets. It is about who is considered when difficult decisions are made. Whose contributions are recognized and whose are deemed dispensable? If layoffs systematically remove Black people and other people of color, even under the guise of neutrality, it reveals that equity is conditional and disposable.
Leadership must recognize the hidden strategies that maintain inequality and ensure that decisions are scrutinized for racial impact. Now more than ever, it is important to assemble safeguards that protect the workforce from these silent forms of exclusion.
The stakes are high under an administration that blatantly undervalues diversity within its employees. When media companies fail to confront this, they are reshaping who has a voice and who is represented in society.
