The character revealing bit is this:
> Have you ever heard of someone getting “feedback” on a paper through a privileged and confidential document to HR? Does that sound like a standard procedure to you or does it just happen to people like me who are constantly dehumanized?
She was told by her bosses boss to retract a paper. Whatever is it that paper, and whatever the reasons or the delivery method are, there is nothing somebody in her position can do about it, short of resign and, assuming the paper does not depend on proprietary information, independently publish. She instead decides to complain on an internal forum and call it 'constant dehumanization'. That is a serious accusation that she needs to back up, not just throw it around unsubstantiated.
This is the fundamental victim mindset of the social media woke: any setback is chalked up to identity based oppression. Reality check: everybody has setbacks, most of them unfair, or at least easily perceived as unfair, and definitely frustrating. Most have the decency to deal with it, pick up and go on without making a disgraceful spectacle by venting on social media. As it happens, I am aware of a similar situation between two people I highly respect at Google, where a VP told a paper author to abstain from publishing, in that case presumably to avoid spilling 'special sauce' information to the public. You never heard of it, and that's a good thing.
Something all of us need to ponder as we are ushered in the brave new social media era. Old school venting is ephemeral and limited to a small group of trusted confidents. Social media venting is permanent, and has the possibility to go viral. Proceed with caution.