> "XX% of hiring must be of phenotype Y" is in direct violation of the code of conduct.

Does Google have mandated quotas? For which demographic, because they seem to be either ignoring them (which would mean they aren't mandates) or aiming pretty low when it comes to women and non-asians. Or they coincidentally ended up with roughly the same quotas as all the other large tech companies:

http://fortune.com/2017/06/29/google-2017-diversity-report/

> "If two candidates of phenotype X and Y are equally qualified, prefer the X candidate" is in direct violation of the code of conduct.

"prefer the X candidate" (if X is a stand-in for a gender/racial/subgroup of protected category) is plain illegal. So I'm assuming that's not an official Google mandate (without further evidence).

But this would be a pointless mandate anyway as there is no such thing as "equally qualified". Has a hiring manager ever had to decide between identical twins who went to the same schools and internships for the same amount of years and received the same grades and job evaluations? Is there a universally agreed upon conversion scale upon which we know how many years at MIT equals a year at Harvard (or vice versa), and how that translates into "qualification points" depending on job title?

> "Target hiring search based on phenotype X" is in direct violation of the code of conduct.

Uh, well since we're trying to interpret the letter and spirit of the quoted passage in the Code of Conduct, I hope it isn't pedantic to point out that the quoted passage specifically refers to the basis of "employment" and employment is related to, but not recruitment? I mean, has there ever been a recruiting process that was unaffected by factors unrelated to "individual merit and qualifications"? LinkedIn built a unicorn business off of the bias of networks. Before LinkedIn, there was this concept called "references".

If you're suggesting it's wrong for a job search to prioritize diversity, at what level? I'm not a lawyer but let's assume that a policy of "reject all applications from whites and non-females" would be legally prohibited. However, sending a recruiter to do a luncheon at Smith College or Howard University is clearly not illegal. But is it "wrong" or suboptimal if Google sends a recruiter to those colleges even though it's much cheaper to do a recruiting tour at Stanford and Berkeley? Does the extra expenditure for sending a recruiter to colleges that are mostly black/women constitute evidence that Google has racial/gender biases, because it's spending more money to recruit at colleges that have far fewer whites/men than the average college? What about donating to and allowing employees to spend worktime assisting and interacting with programs like Black Girls Code or the Society of Women Engineers, which would presumably increase the chances that members of those organizations end up successfully networking with Google recruiters?

Just as Damore argued in his memo, diversity is not as simple as skin color or gender. So it stands to reason that initiatives with the aim of supporting and increasing diversity or not simple, nor reducible to "Google hires unqualified non-white-males in the pursuit of public relations/appeasing SJWs", which is how Damore seemed to interpret things.

But why should we assume Damore has interpreted Google's initiatives correctly, which would imply that the Google employees who agree or participate in these initiatives are idiots and/or complicit in discrimination? He didn't name any specific people or employees so it's possible that he's had adequate interaction with the initiatives and its facilitators to make a privileged assessment of them. If he has evidence that these programs led to either illegal discrimination of qualified candidates, and/or the hiring of inferior candidates, I'm assuming he'll bring that up with his complaint to the NLRB.