I cannot believe what I'm reading in this thread, especially from usernames I recognize and respect. If this is really what is ascertained from this, our two sides' differences are too large to be reconciled. Consider maybe some people truly want to work with the best of the best, ignoring race or gender. Let the cards fall where they may based on merit.

I'm all for hiring based on merit and nothing else. 100%, that's what I'd want to see.

But actually doing so is a fantasy. Building bias-free selection processes is really, really hard. I don't think anyone actually knows how. (At least not useful ones. You can trivially eliminate bias by never hiring anyone, for example.)

It looks to me like this is the fundamental agreement between the two sides here. Both sides want to hire the people who will be best at the job, full stop. People who think James Damore is correct believe that the typical hiring process, or at least some achievable tech hiring process, already achieves this, and any modification is necessarily selecting worse candidates. People on the other side, such as myself, believe that the hiring process selects for far more than just merit, and diversity programs are an attempt to fix that.

So, yes, let's pick the best of the best. How?

An alternate way to phrase it for you, then. Why are you assuming that these programs do not produce the "best of the best"?

Did you just equate "non-progressives" with "racists and sexists"?

No, I believe the author did that when he said that diversity programs alienate non-progressives.

You at least agree that there are different types of diversity programs. (From his claims) Google's approach to diversity are hamfisted and end up achieving a level of diversity that looks good on internal reports but ends up alienating people because it's more important what you are than who you are.

If a non-progressive is alienated by a diversity program, are they not a racist or sexist?

Not all diversity program are created equal, heh.

Diversity through quotas or hiring preferences to X, Y, Z classes of people are bound to make people angry.

Diversity though increased access to education, recruitment efforts, and accommodation of different strengths and weaknesses, personalities, work styles, management styles, etc. would make people much happier.

We have a mandated bible study program covering the ten commandments.

Oh that alienates you? So you want to murder people and steal stuff? We are going to fire/blacklist you now as a thief.

No. Maybe we just believe in equality for all regardless of race or sex. If a cool course opens but only for women, or people of color, of course that makes us feel alienated.

He's not saying that the diversity programs are alienating conservatives. He's saying that if Google really wants to care about diversity, they should be more open to political diversity.

He literally says that Google's diversity programs alienate non-progressives.

No he doesn't. His bullet point about not alienating conservatives is completely independent from discussion about diversity programs.

"These [diversity] programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives."

Thanks for finding the quote. Regardless, the author says that the politicization is alienating conservatives, not the program itself. If Google allowed for an open discussion about its diversity program, the author would not have this criticism.

He's saying the program itself is, and this is the reason why.

"Politicization" is quite vague and the author doesn't explain exactly how these programs are "politicized" or what that means. I suspect it comes down to their mere existence.