And for this he should be fired? Also I think you are being too generous in attributing people's outrage to them reading malice into his motives. People overwhelmingly are reacting to his words because he has violated sacred PC orthodoxy in one of the great temples of PC orthodoxy (Google and Bay Area in general). This has been a vicious mob attack on the guy who mostly appears to just have tried to civilly and rationally express his views without realizing how he suffers from unconscious biases.

At worst, if you can read his mind, it was cover for his conscious motive to discriminate against women but I really don't believe he knows it.

I'm not sure anyone deserves to be fired for being an idiot, but I'd argue that no one should be forced to work with one either.

It would be great if you could point to documents proving all your assumptions on bias. People have been so vehement about their beliefs. But there has never been a succint summarization of the proof. If it's so self evident, someone with decent writing skills would have whipped up a document like the manifesto for the general arguments with proof of bias right?

The thing is, if you don't believe those assumptions, you will view the the unconscious bias and diversity programs as discriminatory. And many people don't believe those assumptions. They see companies discriminating against them and they don't like it.

There are a simply insane number of succinct summaries, opinions, studies, court cases, historical texts etc. which show that bias, especially ones based on race and gender, are prevalent at multiple tiers of society.

There are not "assumptions" at this point. They are a factual reality.

What do you mean by a cheap rhetorical trick? It didn't seem that way to me at all. Did I miss something?

The trick is using the language of equality to argue in favor of an approach which will decrease it.

It's a fairly common tactic inside of the RedPill community, and within White Power/Pride groups. Arguing that by fighting sexism/racism you are being sexist/racist.

Arguing that unproven methods of fighting sexism/racism aren't as effective as everyone claims they are and that said methods are potentially harmful isn't the same as being sexist/racist. I feel like the author is attempting to make the point that such practices aren't really in anyone's interest except the outward appearance of the company.

No, the author is attempting to argue that the practices are irrelevant or ineffective because the default state, without them, is the natural one.

He very explicitly is arguing that policies designed to correct the natural state are sexist/racist on their own, and have to be discarded.

He then hints at having a strong bias towards believing sexist/racist conclusions from a limited reading of a limited amount of information.