[s73ver]

Let's be frank, here. This is not someone merely "expressing an opinion." This is someone rallying against diversity, using pseudoscience to back up claims that women and minorities are inferior, and thus shouldn't have been hired. On top of that, they ranted about how Google had not done enough to make conservatives feel they have a safe space, when the only thing Google has done on the subject is to make others feel safe at Google.

[amazingman]

I looked for claims in the manifesto that women and/or minorities are inferior, and I failed to find them. Would you mind providing an example of what I seem to have missed?

[drewrv]

Believing that diversity requires "lowing the bar" means believing "diverse" candidates are inferior.

[amazingman]

Again, I failed to find this claim. The one instance I found of this phrase arises explicitly within a claim about a specific hiring practice being discriminatory:

>Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Is this what you're referring to?

[dsfyu404ed]

No, it just means that ones that meet the current requirements are not available in sufficient quantity.

[shaftoe]

He didn't rail against diversity, he railed against what are effectively affirmative action policies. Several times he went to pains to point out he wasn't against diversity of people, just the initiatives at Google.

He railed against the idea that pay and hiring gaps must be caused by biases and, once you rule out bias, what you're left with must be some combination of cultural, biological, and personal factors. Better to discuss and address real issues and not perpetually pretend that everyone is a closet racist and sexist.

[wanderingshi]

actually, I think the author was pro-diversity but anti-diversity programs. in other words, he's rallying against diversity programs, not diversity.

he also didn't outright claim women/minorities are "inferior" but that biological differences mean they are good at different things and maybe driving them into tech isn't necessarily a good thing. he also further claims we should be looking at each candidate and evaluate their skills as an individual and not because of one of their attributes (i.e. race, gender, religion)

I'd urge you to reread the manifesto and not get too focused on the part with bad science. the author makes some other interesting points.

[lawnchair_larry]

Did you miss the part where he was promoting diversity and proposing strategies to improve it? Weirdest rally "against" diversity I've ever heard of.