> which is understandable, since defenders don't hold this view. Which parts of the memo are you referring to.

I'm not going to dissect the entire memo and get into a back-and-forth about the exact comments but one example is illustrative:

> - A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

The implication being that it's easier for "diversity" candidates to get hired. This implicitly devalues any such coworkers you have because you've just said they were held to a lower standard.

If you can't see how that might create a hostile work environment then I'm afraid I can't help you.

> AFAIK the memo itself was a result of a leak, which sets the tone.

So that justifies opening up your colleagues to very public harassment and open attacks by leaking not only what they said but their personal information? Because the memo leak set the "tone"?

I sure hope you're not saying that. And if you aren't, what are you saying, exactly?

Is it really your view that it's unacceptable to draw attention to a high priority queue or something like that, just because it might 'devalue' the beneficiaries of the policy?

Right. It's literally blaming the whistleblower. "We created a high priority queue, but we're faulting you for pointing out the disparity we created".