While I don't think mentioning her by name was necessary (she's just an example of the culture of bad middle management he's calling out), I do think highlighting her race as a meta-criticism does neither the OP nor Banks herself any favors.
My rule of thumb: unless given an obvious reason not to, assume good faith on the part of individuals.
Aside from, but including, this instance, I commend anyone who calls out their manager for toxic behaviour and outright being bad at their job, as long as like any criticism it leaves a person room to take the feedback and change in some measurable way; even better if the person levying the criticism left of their own accord and has a mountain of career capital to stand on while doing so.
People in positions of power, particularly those in-charge of others, should be taking it on a responsibility and duty; like any other person, sometimes they do a shit job, and I think managers (unless they've committed sexual assault or something) often get exempted from criticism, while any failures ironically tend to be shoveled onto individuals as replaceable units. How many people out there have managers that end being directly responsible for burning them down and out, causing problems in their family lives, and otherwise cultivating an environment that makes the task of getting work done all but impossible?
Throwaway didn't claim bad faith necessarily, but just pointed out an important variable.
It's good to have good faith, but it's also good to understand that good faith individuals also suffer from blindspots and unconscious biases.
Hypothetically if there is a set of leaders, directors, and VPs, that all seem equally incompetent, but you call out only one, what might be the reason for it? It could be random. It could be because they were this person's actual direct manager. It coudl be because they're genuinely the one that are the most incompetent of the lot. But it could also be that they're the one perceived to be the most incompetent of the lot. Why? Does them being a woman or black factor into it? Who knows. Not even OP might.
It's not helpful to jump to racism at a moment's notice. It's not helpful to use race as a shield from criticism. But it's also not helpful to pretend that racism doesn't exist, even unconsciously within folks that would otherwise believe they don't have a prejudiced bone in their body.
In conclusion, people shouldn't ACCUSE, and other people shouldn't get DEFENSIVE. It's OK to discuss. I thought Throwaway did a decent job of not accusing. Many responses got too defensive tho.
I agree with you that some reactions were a bit strong.
But I reject that "pretending racism doesn't exist" is a good description of objections like mine above.
In my view it's just as fair to say that taking your position means pretending that racism exists in all interactions between people of different races, and must be contended with before other matters.
Unconscious racism is a thing, yet I question the utility of bringing it up when you have no actual evidence that OP is affected by unconscious racism. He might just hate women too, right? Can't rule that out.
Acting like race determines everything isn't exactly the healthiest strategy either.
Ultimately we're discussing assuming someone is a racist because they said something negative about a person of a different race. That assumption is also a racial stereotype.
The dickishness/meanness of singling someone out by name in a public article on the Internet, which is what the comment here was primarily about.
And then the second level, which the commenter deliberately downplayed as a minor second point (but people here jumped on it...) that said person is a minority, so it makes one extra-suspicious about motives.
So I'm not sure where you got this "acting like race is about everything" point, because that wasn't in the comment.
It's pretty unusual to publically throw someone under the bus by name like this in a professional name.
Given it's an unusual situation, people are reflecting on what makes this allegedly incompetent VP different from other incompetent VPs who aren't called out like this?
I'm not pretending anything like that. I assume good faith on the part of individuals (intentional word choice), because individuals are not systems or institutions and they really do tend to be decent and well-intentioned.
My rule of thumb: unless given an obvious reason not to, assume good faith on the part of individuals.