For her first tweet I would give her the benefit of the doubt because I have heard some on the left use "whiteness" to mean white privilege and not white people. (That said, she must have realized how "whiteness" would be interpreted as white people. So I'm thinking, based on this tweet, that she was doing a bit of internet trolling and wanted to see how people would react. I don't think that in itself is terrible. Sometimes people want attention. Can't fault her for being human.)

The second tweet is something else entirely, since she says white people. But I'm going to be really charitable and say that when she says white people "on the trail" are dangerous she is specifically referring to white people who POC encounter on the trail to justice and equality- aka white people who are trying to block the trail/progress.

But even if this is what she means, based on some of the views she's expressed, that to her would still mean most white people. So I think it's safe to say that in her eyes, the majority of white people are dangerous.

I disagree with this. Yes, white people- probably most white people- do things that are not helpful or even harmful, that widen racial gaps and make life more difficult for POC. But in most cases, that's an unfortunate side effect, not a goal. It's difficult- in some cases impossible- to know what the effects of a particular policy will be. I don't think voting for a policy that ends up having a negative effect on a group of people makes you a danger to that group. (Granted, that policy could put somebody in a dangerous situation that they might not have been in had the policy not passed, so in that sense all the people who voted for that policy did something that ended up creating a dangerous situation. But that, to me, is a bizarre way of defining danger.)

I completely understand the backlash. Even if the "white people on the trail...dangerous" alternative interpretation is correct and whiteness means white privilege and not people, I don't see how she could be completely unaware of how her words would come across to many. And the fact that she hasn't apologized makes me think the reaction is not a complete surprise to her. Which begs the question: why on Earth would she risk her job to say inflammatory things on Twitter that, due to her use of inflammatory language, will only poison discourse and give her opponents ammunition. If she feels like she can say this sort of stuff without jeopardizing her job that's concerning too.

I'm not a big fan of firing people for saying stupid stuff and I think there's a question mark here when it comes to what she meant. As long as she doesn't treat white people differently in her job, I see little reason to fire her. These tweets by themselves aren't enough for me to conclude she hates white people and wants to harm them. It's not like the Bank employee in charge of loans who posted a racist N word filled rant on Facebook.

I doubt she'll be fired and I don't think she should be.