No he hasn't. Rather, he's implying that 'non-diverse' hires have a higher bar to to pass, and that by enforcing diversity quotas you tend to end up hiring exceptionally qualified people from the 'non-diverse' group, which can have the opposite of your desired effect, and perpetuate stereotypes about the performances of people from different groups.
For example, let's say you have 100 people interviewing for 10 positions. Of that, due to current representation of women in tech let's say the candidates comprise 20 women and 80 men.
Let's also assume that 25% of those interviewing meet the technical standards a.k.a 'the bar' required by Google (that makes for 5 women and 20 men).
Google however is only hiring 10 positions, and in order to meet diversity requirements will hire 5 women and 5 men (50/50 split).
Each one of the people hired is qualified to work at Google and meets the bar (none of them are underperforming).
Without any diversity requirements a candidate would need to be in the top 10% of other candidates to get a position however now, for the women, they only need to be in the top 25% of other woman candidates to get the position, whereas the men need to be in the top 6.25% of male candidates.
The bar has been effectively lowered for the women candidates and raised for the male candidates, despite all of them being worthy and capable of working at Google.
If you are always hiring equal numbers of people from both groups, but from one group you are always hiring the top 6.25% of candidates, and the other group you are hiring from the top 25% of candidates, then over time you'll start to find that on average, one group has a larger percentage of high performers than the other.