James Damore never said anything of the sort. He was concerned that women might feel excluded in an engineering-focused environment and be less likely to seek such a role because of the different aggregation of preferences and inclinations among women as opposed to men. He said zilch about quality or potential for success, or for that matter about any individual woman (as opposed to aggregate trends and their influence on 'big picture' stats).
James Damore's point was that diversity hires make for low quality hires. People who believe that may see a PoC working in tech and automatically assume they got hired for their skin color and not skill.
Being as generous with the interpretation as possible, I guess suggesting new programs to replace existing ones could be interpreted as "programs that are aimed at a helping women and people of color should be ended", as ending one and replacing it is kind of ending. Saying "repeatedly" seems a stretch though.
Can you explain what I'm missing that lead to your beliefs?
There is another section with programs Damore claimed would be more effective. I am confused why replacing programs equates to ending them. Unless the goal is only to have good intentions, shouldn't the effectiveness of programs matter?
He uses that to suggest the programs increase racial tensions, not to suggest that we shouldn't be trying to get more people of color involved in tech. He cites this article [0] as his reasoning.
Is there something I'm missing?
> notorious ex-Googler James Damore, who suggest this is because women and people of color lack the innate qualities needed to succeed in tech.
It seems that people just keep tacking on “sins” to see what sticks to people’s reputations regardless of the facts. Was there anything in Danmores article that even mentioned people of color?