[Malice]

I had to read this a few times, but I think I get it now. The original manifesto author means that the "bar is lowered" for diverse candidates because they're scrutinized more carefully and fewer qualified candidates are eliminated? If you're good enough and diverse, you're more likely to be hired than if you're good enough and ... whatever the word for not-diverse is? The original author is not claiming that more unqualified diverse candidates are hired, just that it's easier to get hired if you're qualified and diverse?

If I've understood that correctly I really appreciate your effort in explaining it. Your comment should be higher so more people could see it :)

Also, if I understand you correctly, the phrase "lower the bar" might have gotten him fired for something he wasn't intending to say.

[manfredo]

That's exactly right. Thanks for taking the time to read my comment thoroughly.

I also agree with your point around phrasing. I agree that lot of people took away the wrong meaning due to the phrase "lower the bar" (which is a very loaded phrase). This piece probably could have been better received if the author sought out proof-reading with trusted co-workers and friends beforehand. In particular the author should have:

* Dropped the awkward and monolithic generalizations of "Left" and "Right" at the beginning.

* Stayed way the hell away from talking about biological differences, just say that men and women have different preferences for working hours, fields, etc. and don't touch on possible causes.

* Don't emphasize on the benefices diversity initiatives have on diverse candidates, but rather the possible negative effects for the group as a whole. The point about OKRs contingent on hitting a certain percentage of diverse team members turning hiring and transfers into a zero sum game was actually a really good point that potentially hurts diverse groups themselves by limiting cross-team mobility.

* At the end, don't try to turn this into a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. Just point out that affirmative action is not nearly as uniformly supported as people make it out to be. For reference 42% of the population opposes affirmative action for race in the workplace, and 33% for gender [1].

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/184772/higher-support-gender-affi...

[lurker69]

He might have planned all this. He was apparently chess champion as a child.

* Mentioning of left echo chamber was pandering to the right. And he got huge support form right leaning and centrist media and personalities.

* Biological differences he mentioned were sourced, so not his personal opinions. He knew this will trigger outrage from pro feminist camp that will start witch hunt against him, based on unproven accusations that he holds misogynistic beliefs.

* Emphasize on the benefices diversity initiatives have on diverse candidates, was another passive aggressive attack on one of SJW/PC/regressive-left sacred cows.

I dont really know if he planned this, but if you spend any time following anti-SJW sphere, then you should agree that reaction was totally predictable.

Basically he just said that google created environment where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber agenda (here he was pandering to anti-SJW anti-PC / centrists, conservatives...) cant safely express their opinions anymore. And he was fired for doing exactly this. Proving his point on himself. Google HR had two bad choices, not fire him and cause outrage among many of their left leaning (snowflakes); or fire him and prove his point that they re indeed left leaning echo chamber.

I base my speculation on fact that he put his full name on memo, instead of pseudonym and this quote:

> Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.