Which shouldn't be surprising, because unless carefully expressed, skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping, especially when the skepticism is expressed in the context of political tenets.
Pretending that stereotypes are factually bogus is wrong. It creates resentment. It's much better to accept that stereotypes exist for a reason, but emphasize that it's a grave injustice to let stereotypes hurt our evaluation of people who defy these stereotypes.
> skepticism towards the stereotype threat effect can be interpreted as a justification for stereotyping
Current HR policies go beyond requiring fair treatment of individuals as individuals. Every sane person supports doing that. HR demands that we silence truths about the natural world go unstated. HR demands that we make untrue statements about the world. That's anathema to anyone technically-minded.
The claim that one can engage in stereotyping people while exibiting fair threatment of the same people as individuals is dubious to say the least given the definition of stereotyping.
Once engaged in stereotyping no amount of post factum fair threatment of the individual will make up for the unfairness.
Later edit: People are imperfect pattern recognisers, in fact our pattern recognition generates a significant amount of false positives. From an evolutionary perspective this was acceptable at a time when tigers could be lurking in the bush. The penalty for running from an imaginary tiger in the bush is insignifiant compared to the penalty of not running from an undetected tiger.