Keep in mind that Damore specifically stated the false-negative rate was lowered for women. This is the full quote, "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for 'diversity' candidates by decreasing the false negative rate." In other words, Damore stated Google's diversity policies made more qualified non-diverse candidates get rejected - not that underqualified diverse candidate's get hired.

Many media outlets omitted the italicized portion.

And Google's own internal project confirmed that what makes an engineer at Google successful is their ability to communicate and empathize with other people. Traits which this "biological selection" narrative disfavors.

Discrimination of gender, race, and sexual preference is demonstrably real. This suit is a farce and I hope he loses.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-lear...

Affirmative action is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer or have suffered from discrimination within a culture[1]. Google is an affirmative action employer[2]. If women are favored over men, then wouldn't it make sense that a less skilled woman has the potential of being selected over a more skilled man?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

[2] https://careers.google.com/how-we-hire/

I don't see any support for [2] in the page you linked (maybe because I am on mobile). There may have been efforts to recruit that were directed at women (e.g. sending employees to Grace Hopper), but ultimately the bar was the same for everyone.

It's at the bottom of the page.

> Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative action employer.

I see it now. I believe that's something every major US Corp that sells to the federal government has to say: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-...

That's assuming that there's only a handful of people to pick from. But if your top choices are all top tier developers, then slicing it up by gender or ethnicity shouldn't make a difference.

No. They could just be spending 3 times as much to recruit women, for example. They could have recruiters dedicated to finding women. They could be funding women in tech programs at many levels. etc...