“a document […] that argued against diversity programs”
Given that the document suggests multiple ways to promote diversity and closing the gender gap, this does not seem an accurate summary. Let’s strive for steel-manning, not straw-manning.
Criticizing some diversity or affirmative action programs for their negative results should not be equated with being against any programs, let alone their well-intended goal.
You quote: The scarcity of women at the very highest echelons “is due, in significant part, to changeable factors that vary with time, country and ethnic group.”
That seems to leave room for non-changeable factors. Yet you criticize: the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes […].
There are major cultural effects to be sure (consider kids toys and advertising). The memo doesn’t seem to reject that.
Yet there are apparently some innate differences (again considering toys and other behaviors, see a few examples below).
Such differences may simply not matter (tiny), some may balance out, but some may also get amplified by culture. It does not seem trivial to study/quantify either way, which is why I find your conclusion (“the big lie”) surprising.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15693771
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2643016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15146142
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712605X85808/abstract
