Four scientists have claimed that James Damore’s Google manifesto is scientifically accurate, as reported by Quillette.

Responding to the viewpoint diversity manifesto, which called for more ideological diversity in Google’s workplace and pointed out not only the biological differences between men and women but also how these can apply to work, the four scientists deemed the ten-page document to be scientifically accurate.

“The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right,” declared Rutgers University Professor Lee Jussim. “Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences.”

“I cannot speak to the atmosphere at Google, but: 1. Give that the author gets everything else right, I am pretty confident he is right about that too; 2. It is a painfully familiar atmosphere, one that is a lot like academia,” he continued.

This view was mirrored by Professor David P. Schmitt.

“I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence,” Schmitt proclaimed in the article. “In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong.”

University of New Mexico Professor Geoffrey Miller also agreed, claiming that critics of the manifesto “ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments.”

“Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understands sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research,” he continued. “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history.”

Debra W. Soh, Ph.D., a Canadian science writer, also deemed the manifesto to be scientifically accurate, declaring, “As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least.”

“I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership,” Soh explained. “Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.”

Google employee James Damore, who authored the manifesto, has since been fired from Google, with the company claiming he had advanced “harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Read the full article at Quillette.

Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington or like his page at Facebook.