I am not really sure what value Donna Riley adds, like her or not, it can't be denied that she is definitely divisive. I'll add that the "rigor" definition argument she was making in the video was rather childlike, and I use the term "childlike" deliberately as a genuine critique, not as an ad hominem: you can just imagine her as a child looking up rude words in the dictionary.
I don't really have a view one way or the other on the maker of the video, but I wasn't tempted to subscribe.
Riley's very presence at Purdue will, I am pretty darned sure, have a net negative effect on influencing those considering Purdue for engineering.
Gender imbalance in engineering and STEM in general isn't something that can be solved (assuming it needs to be solved) at tertiary education: any negative career perception has already been done way back in earlier school years.
While many of us talk about the the gender imbalance in STEM, nobody is complaining about the diametrically opposite gender imbalance in those university course with names ending in "Studies"? There is a correlation in reducing numbers of women in some areas of STEM, particularly Maths and Computing, with the increase in the number of women studying "Studies", some would argue that is more than just correlation.
One thing is for certain, if you're a woman in technology, per capita you are at a distinct advantage nowadays when it comes to landing a job IME. Everyone is falling over themselves to address gender imbalance. I just don't see the resumes/CVs, but given a man or a woman with the same experience, qualifications and soft skills, the woman will tend to get the job.