Ironically, when Larry Summers and James Damore are mentioned in the paper, Hill references a blog post on the Heterodox Academy website (i.e. references SH17a

Ironically, when Larry Summers and James Damore are mentioned in the paper, Hill references a blog post on the Heterodox Academy website (i.e. references SH17a and SH17b in the paper). Ironic because Heterodox Academy was founded partly to chronicle illiberal behavior on university campuses. To clarify why I find your bringing up Damore ironic, I'll say that I don't think it's particularly relevant to this discussion, and certainly not damning. (However, it does contribute to my feeling that this paper doesn't belong in a pure math journal.) For what it's worth, it sounds like the Summers/Damore discussion was added at the suggestion of the referees or editors at NYJM. If you look at the arXiv history, Hill and coauthors didn't include included mention of Summers/Damore until version 5 of their paper. (It disappears at version 8. I would generously guess Hill removed it because he didn't particularly agree with NYJM's suggestion.) Finally, for those who are concerned that the mention of Summers/Damore is damning, here is what Hill says about Summers/Damore in the NYJM version of the paper: "A resurgence of controversy came after the VH was linked to the forced resignation of Harvard President Larry Summers and the firing of Google engineer James Damore." "VH" is variability hypothesis. My point is the paper does not endorse either Larry Summers or James Damore. It just mentions that the topic of the paper is a contentious one, as proven by the controversy surrounding Summers and Damore, and that the hope of the paper is to provide a concrete (if simple) mathematical theory in which to investigate VH in the evolution of species. If it weren't the variability hypothesis but instead Anderson localization, I think it's clear it would have received neither fire nor fury.