I don't see anything nefarious here, and don't understand your "Trojan horse" comment. The article is about learning to identify and compensate for one's biase

I don't see anything nefarious here, and don't understand your "Trojan horse" comment. The article is about learning to identify and compensate for one's biases in order to create a more friendly environment for minority demographics in tech. The concrete reason to do this is to make life easier for those who are the targets of bias. The hope is that reducing bias will reduce underrepresentation naturally. There are many conversations about diversity that stray into controversial territory. People start talking about quotas, which leads to arguments about reverse discrimination and the true meaning of a meritocracy. This is not one of those conversations! I see no evidence that the author is getting anywhere close to suggesting that equal representation is more important than evaluating people based on merit alone. She's saying that most of us carry biases around, and that it's important that we do our best to prevent them from making life and work shitty for our peers. There's a difference between wanting equal representation "by any means" and wanting it "the right way". This article is advocating the latter--and even then only as a secondary goal--the primary goal is to make sure we don't let our biases create hostility toward those who've already proven they have a right to be here.