I don't find that call for discrimination in the text. Are we reading the same document?
When I read it, he mentions conservatives only in the section "Suggestions / Stop alienating conservatives" where he says:
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the memo, as so many others have done. Perhaps you have read some commentary, many of which also misrepresented it, and not the memo itself?
I'm not sure why the defenders of this memo always devolve into word games.
"Stop alienating X" is a call for action, and if that call to action is heeded X will feel less alienated and there will be more of them. Because it's targetted at X it is "discrimination" by the dictionary definition of the term and by the general usage. This is true whether X is "women" or "conservatives". In this kind of context it is sometimes called "positive discrimination". The memo writer uses the term discrimination himself in this way when talking about hiring more women.
The relevant bit you didn't quote makes it clear that he sees business benefits from having more conservatives employed:
"Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."
So, taking action to hire or retain more conservatives, good for business. Because they have skills Google needs more of. Taking action to hire or retain more women, bad for business.
He clearly has no problem with affirmative action in itself, as long as the target being helped isn't women (or racial minorities).
When I read "stop alienating conservatives" with the explanation that they should not "need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility", I read that as saying that people shouldn't be openly hostile to other people even if they disagree.
In my opinion, that is not discrimination or "positive discrimination". In my opinion, it's simply being civil to other people.
Okay, well I'll just redefine everything he argues against in the memo, which he regards as discrimination, as "being civil to other people" and then we're at an impasse I guess.
When I read it, he mentions conservatives only in the section "Suggestions / Stop alienating conservatives" where he says:
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
It seems to me that you are misrepresenting the memo, as so many others have done. Perhaps you have read some commentary, many of which also misrepresented it, and not the memo itself?