Idk if this is true, but that's how the right is reading this.
I would actually prefer we be frank about this. Racist rightwingers aside, if they think it's better to lay off cishet white males before anyone else and if that is what they're doing, why not just come out and say that? It is either a reprehensible or a laudable act, without anything in between, and if you're doing that, you obviously think the latter. Are they afraid of right wing backlash? I hardly think tiptoeing around it this way is going to stifle that backlash.
What if instead anti oppression means they won't target any ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation for layoffs?
Saying you want to hire a white guy even sounds illegal. But saying you want to hire a minority is applauded.
I can imagine this same rule can slowly slide to allow for firing certain people as long as it protects the current protected class.
So you either perform lay offs "randomly", based on merit (these particular jobs are targeted first) or a mix of the two. If you have to add "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression lens" it means you filter candidate lists based on racist/oppressive criteria.
Most probably this means that candidate list will be filtered in a way that end result of lay offs will target certain races, ethnicities, etc. more aggressively to make end result "Anti-Racist/Anti-Oppression", whatever that means by them. It might mean heavy lean towards white cishet males, might as well mean the opposite. What matters, though, that any way you look at it race/ethnicity/etc. becomes a criteria for lay offs, which is both racist and illegal. But yes, blame it on the "right wing"