Yeeesh.
Damore's argument against Google was that it had political bias and was authoritarian.
It's right there in the introduction. TL:DR
Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation
He then makes two specific claims, with references after musing about "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech, Personality differences" and "Men's higher drive for status" these are as follows:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]
The "evidence" for these citations is this mess:
[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
"To an extent", what? When did it happen, where? There's a vague claim about something happening "to an extent" and no details and another unsourced claim aping a citation.
So, again we have Damore's claim of mistreatment of an entire swathe of Google's staff based on...who the fuck knows, claiming who the fuck knows vs a specific claim that specific things happened to a specific person at specific times.
But Damore must be right because he has pages of citations from wikipedia, and also blogs for...evolutionary biology. Sounds legit!