And it is not unusual at all for there to be things that everyone knows should not be written down, but either discussed only in person, or left implicit. There is usually a few slip ups though, which would come out in discovery.
> "possibility of unconscious bias when selecting among auditions"
I think "conscious but not stated to the actress" is the more likely explanation, that is not inconsistent with this reporting.
For what it's worth, if this does go to court (which I doubt), and there is discovery and depositions, and they don't find any documentation, or get any statements suggesting that this was indeed understood to be the goal, then I would be a lot more convinced.
But I think it's a giant stretch to have the base case be that nobody thought of this and they were all shocked, shocked! that people made this connection after they released it.
I'd be more convinced, at least of the fact that it would have even been a good call, if I saw outrage sparked by the possibility of unconscious bias, opposed to what can or has been addressed by other forms of evidence. Claims along the lines of "I'd totally have thought [...]" made in retrospect are entirely unconvincing, particuarly in cases where the suggested thought is not sufficient.
That's what I've been taking issue to from the beginning of this chain[0]. In all but one comment since then I've explicitly specified "[un|sub]conscious bias".
On that topic, would you agree with me that it is not "obvious" that they would predict a group would take issue in this very particular way such that it would necessitate setting up and documenting auditions to prove they have eliminated such bias, and then additionally determine it worthwhile to actually do so?
