> It revealed — to no one’s surprise — that its staff was largely white or Asian and decidedly male.

The US is 61% non-Hispanic white [1], while Google is 54% [2]. One can always rely on the Times to present under-representation as over-representation when it comes to whites.

Another example: "Though Apple’s overall work force teeters heavily toward white men" [3], when two paragraphs before, they report Apple as 55% white - again under-represented. Fortunately they don't include US demographics in the article, hoping readers are ignorant. But when whites are over-represented, suddenly they're able to report honestly [4], instead of hiding behind misleading, ambiguous language like "largely", or presenting only half of the relevant statistics.

Given their error is only ever in one direction, I'm forced to conclude the deception is deliberate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

[2] https://diversity.google/annual-report/

[3] https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/apples-diversity-m...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/world/australia/study-div...

Well from what I've experienced google diversity movement (I didn't work at google, just went for an event for minorities and am in their WIT community) is shallow AF, like they still don't give a damn about human beings, but would like to call themselves diverse, because it is nice thing to do. Rachel has excellent post about diversity branding: https://uxdesign.cc/how-diversity-branding-hurts-diversity-6...