As I understand it Gebru said something like I need X, Y, and Z or I can work on an end date. Google then "accepted her resignation" or fired her. However you prefer to say it.

I can see that mattering if she needs to collect unemployment or something, but then it seems like a legal discussion which I'm not equipped for. In the vernacular, it seems like she threatened to resign and Google accepted it. Either way, I don't see why a vocabulary dispute is a big deal.

Regarding her unprofessional email, it might be easiest to read it for yourself. https://www.platformer.news/p/the-withering-email-that-got-a...

Finally, regarding Pichai's comments, I've not read them so I don't know what he did or didn't say. You seem to be assuming he should apologize and complaining that he didn't though. I'd start by asking why he should apologize? I'm not really convinced Google did anything wrong here.

I don't see how one can say this. There's a huge, intrinsic difference between the two.

Is there an agreed on definition of the terms?

When you set the date - it's a resignation. When they set the date - it's a termination.

When a company says it was the former when it was really the latter (and pretty much obviously so) - they're playing with your head.

Using your definition, yes, it seems clear this was a firing, but again, so what? Does a disagreement on terms really necessitate the drama (news articles, petition, protests)? If she was being denied money somehow because of the distinction then I could see it being a legal case, but I haven't heard anything like that. Google said she resigned, she said she didn't, okay.

If anything, saying she resigned sounds a bit nicer to me than saying she was fired. Probably best if Google had not commented on it at all.