Google's blog post about diversity stats doesn't say anything about age, they diversity website does (but not with age stats.)
Of course, there are lots of possible diversity axes for which they don't have stats, including, among others, veterans status and sexual orientation (which, also, though they aren't in the stats, are addressed on the diversity web page.)
Its even weirder that the blog post complains that Google's federally mandated EEO-1 report includes only the information that prescribed in the federal mandate.
That is one way to spin it but not what I mean. My point of the post is that it is unfortunate that the EEO-1 doesn't care about age, because age is a problem in Silicon Valley and it's going to be worse as the workforce gets older. The EEOC doesn't care about age, so we can't count on EEOC to require companies to talk about age. It's going to have to come from the companies.
[2] which, I suppose, is also good evidence for the claim that "the EEOC doesn't care about keeping its website listing current cases particularly current", but that's a different issue.
Or, IOW, can make assesments based on what they know, without necessarily having some kind of forensic level or mathematical level proof.
Which is an essential skill in real life (even in court actually). Seems like a lot of people, especially programmers, conflate real life discussions with theorem proving.
While I agree that age should be addressed, your post seems to be a very good example of "letting the perfect be the enemy of the good." Here we have a major company apologizing for its poor diversity and providing a confidential report to the EEOC along with visualizations, very publicly on its website. It seems like a great start, with plenty of room to grow. So why "so-called diversity"? There has to be a more constructive way to address this and call on Google to release more demographics - but let's not forget that everyone else is keeping even the "so-called" diversity stats secret.
A fair comment, and I agree that Google's opening up about diversity is a good start. It's unfortunate that the EEOC doesn't require age info, and that Google doesn't volunteer it. Google opened the debate by posting on their blog, and my hope is that the ensuing debate expands to include more than just the very important issues of gender and race.
Of course, there are lots of possible diversity axes for which they don't have stats, including, among others, veterans status and sexual orientation (which, also, though they aren't in the stats, are addressed on the diversity web page.)
Its even weirder that the blog post complains that Google's federally mandated EEO-1 report includes only the information that prescribed in the federal mandate.