The rest of their marketing is not made up of employee photos, though. We would expect it to roughly reflect their target audience, and it does.

> to put it charitably

To put what charitably? What are we even talking about? I don't understand this conversation.

Respectfully, I think it's a bit dishonest that you've linked to one very specific subpage for one specific office in Seattle, presumably the one page you found which contained a lot of white people.

I'm not sure if I even need to write any more, because the fact that you needed to do that demonstrates my point probably better than I can.

But, to say the obvious, have a look at their root careers page (I think that's a good "nothing-up-my-sleeve URL", so to speak): https://careers.google.com

> To put what charitably?

Well, the phrase immediately surrounding that one in my comment: "their marketing graphics bely those [i.e. 53%-white] demographics".

(To be clear, I don't say this with any racist intent. I'm just allergic to insincerity. Whatever one's political commitments, it's plain – to anyone who hasn't completely subordinated their critical faculties to some or other ideological dogma – that Google's photos make great play of their few minority ethnic staff, more than would an equally-large set of random samples from their 53%-white staff. It reminds me of my sister (who's mixed-race, as I am) being summoned whenever her china-white private girls' school was taking photos. My own - hers was our sister school - mustn't've deemed me sufficiently dark..)