He argues against affirmative action that benefits women, because they are inferior[1] anyway, but then argues for affirmative action that benefits conservatives[2], and suggests to start by "breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation", and to hire more conservatives because "conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company"

This shows he has no problem with affirmative action - aka discrimination - as long as he profits. But as soon as someone else profits, he disagrees.

    ________________________

[1] "the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)", also see his point w.r.t. "Neuroticism"

[2] because "Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently"

EDIT: He argues that political diversity is most important:

> Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

and that Google should change its hiring practices to improve this, instead of ethnical or national diversity.

And he makes up more pseudo-scientific arguments for why Google should hire more conservatives:

> conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

In the context of his memo - where he states that Google is too far left-wing - the recommended changes are obvious: Hire more conservative. He also recommends to track the political affiliation of all existing employees to track the diversity gap there:

> I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation

This is the same kind of affirmative action that he criticizes just a few paragraphs before.

EDIT2: With regards to biologically inferior, he references IQ (see his footnote 8, and its use in text), "Neuroticism", and other pseudo-scientific arguments why women would be biologically inferior.