The fact that this author has to start with a series of complete and total lies about the contents of the memo in order to form an argument against it, I find telling. 

She's really just arguing against an imaginary straw-man memo that doesn't exist. I encourage readers to go and read the memo itself in its entirety and judge for themselves. They will find that, in addition to the memo being quite reasonable and liberal and pro-diversity on the whole, many pundits and editorial writers such as the one who wrote the above article are deliberately misrepresenting and lying about it because they aren't able to refute it on a level playing field with cogent fact-based arguments.