> But Google (or any company) would want to hire the "best" candidates over "qualified" candidates wouldn't they?
How exactly do we quantify the difference between "best" and "qualified" and is Google's hiring process granular enough to tell the difference? If a candidate goes through the interview process and the company decides "yes, this person is worth hiring" do you then stop and say "well, this person is qualified, but we're not sure if they are the best, so let's wait and see if someone better comes along"? I'm sure every company wants to hire the "best" candidates but what exactly does that mean and how exactly would that translate to their hiring process?
Besides, it's an open question as to whether or not Google's CS-puzzle-gauntlet interview process is actually effective at hiring the "best" candidates in the first place. But that's an entirely different discussion...
> Is it best for Google and/or society if Google skips out on the best to only hire qualified people just because they are shooting for arbitrary group ratios?
Probably not. Do you think that is what is happening here? That Google's diversity programs are actually causing Google to hire "worse" candidates than they would otherwise?
> Did he really go "much further than [asking the question]"?
He spends several pages trying to justify the status quo with regards to the gender gap in the tech industry, and then calls for the elimination of Google's hiring programs designed to encourage diversity. So... yeah.
I will also point out this particular quote because it is incredibly condescending and makes me suspect the memo was not necessarily written in good faith:
"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."
The first part is an obvious strawman that mischaracterizes the opposing viewpoint, I don't think many people would actually agree that "all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination". Then the second part implies the opposition is blind to the truth that he clearly sees, and furthermore is not capable of actually solving problems. I'm not sure how you could read this and conclude that he's "just asking questions".
> What would all those heavily criticizing him on the basis of not toeing the company line say if an equivalent "reverse" situation had occurred with a right-leaning corp and a left-leaning employee? I think most would feel the same way as right-leaners.
I don't think so. The last time I can recall that a right-leaning corporation fired an employee for expressing a left-leaning viewpoint was when Tomi Lahren was fired from The Blaze for saying she was pro-abortion, and I don't recall there being any backlash to that. These are private corporations, they can hire and fire who they want. (Protected classes excepted, of course.)