Google is damned if they they do, and damned if they don’t.
They have 60 female employees mounting a lawsuit against Google for not paying women enough (for their tastes) on the one hand, and objective reality about merit and availability on the other hand.
The Democrats have David Brock’s front groups, among others, pressuring Google and other big Internet firms into becoming ever increasingly their PC censors and thought police, while it could be death to their brand if people start to see them as doing that.
Also, Google stays on top partly by owning the best brainpower money can buy, with each year’s graduating class. Those folks can find other jobs if they get turned off to Google.
Google’s motto used to be “Don’t be evil”, and they charged their employees with noble sounding missions to “Make information free.” Nowadays they are rolling over to censor results for the Chinese Communist Party, open ways for the Communist Secret Police to automate tracking individuals every utterance, and to increasingly skew and misrepresent public opinion in the rest of the world for (leftist) political purposes as well.
They did this to themselves, by hiring theses propaganda agents and lefties who told their employees they deserve to be paid on the account of their employee status rather than their actual performance and/or job title.
The best part is Google was demanding all its employees illegally discriminate to get more of that same ‘diversity’ which they are apparently forbidden to define or even acknowledge exist. Much less ‘engineer’ a solution to the problem Google asked them to solve.
It is too bad I really would like to hear Google’s ‘diversity executives’ explain how women can add more ‘diversity’ to Google if apparently it is blasphemy to even suggest they are different from men in anyway.
Exactly what ‘diversity’ would theses ‘ladies’ add to Google? For that matter how does ‘google’intend to define them as ‘ladies’ given they now claim there are what 63 genders?
Will the Google exclusives resign their job for making such a distinction in the first place?
It may be that they really canceled the meeting because they just realized by their own newly established ‘rule of conduct’ prohibited acknowledging the existence of the ‘diversity’ topic they were to ‘discuss’.