I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read

I don't see this concerted agenda to remove white men from positions of power. Then you haven't been paying attention to the whole picture. I suggest you read more about this issue and these players' business moves. Today the answer is about 70%. So yeah, we are trending away from 100%. You don't see a concerted agenda here yet you proved my point. And I've yet another gut feeling that it was never 100%. 100% sounds way too radical, maybe around 99%; hence _minority_. Companies with female leadership tend to outperform the market. I never claimed otherwise. I can read prejudice in your words. But I'm probably imagining things. You're claiming that Sundar was chosen for his skin color with no evidence other than speculation. No, I'm claiming Sundar was chosen because of his success with Chrome, his background (as in his professional and educational experience) _and_ his ethnicity. In fact, this latter one not only for one reason but for _two_ reasons: because he belongs to a minority group (which from a PR perspective would look like "see? no more white men! Larry and Sergey are gone!") _and_ because, from a business perspective, it makes sense to pick him to help Google break into and establish itself in the indian market. It's actually a genius move. Chrome is one of the most important products for Google. I've never said otherwise. Have you read about Sundar's involvement with it from the start? Yet again, I suggest you read about it. It's just one search engine query away. Who else was passed up for his job? I have no clue. But I'm sure there were other people, but they weren't as fit for Google's business strategy. How are you so sure? All models are wrong but some are less wrong than others. Ah, yes, and, finally, the constant barrage of negative news about this issue will most likely help Jeff leave.