Google and Twitter release its first “Diversity Report[s].” Both companies state African Americans represent a MEASLY 2% of their respective work forces!

Lack of Diversity at Twitter [July 23, 2014]:

Twitter disclosed the diversity numbers for its global and U.S. employees Wednesday, following in the footsteps of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and LinkedIn.

Like these companies, Twitter is composed of a workforce that’s primarily white and male, especially when it comes to tech-related positions.

At Twitter, 70% of employees are male and 30% are female. When you look at the numbers for tech-related jobs, that ratio switches from 90% male employees to 10% female workers. The statistics are split straight down the middle in terms of gender for non tech jobs, and male employees account for 79% of leadership positions within the company.

The majority of Twitter’s employees are white as well. At Twitter, 59% of U.S. employees are white, while 29% are Asian, 2% or African American or Black, and 3% are Hispanic. And 72% of leadership roles are occupied by white employees.

While these numbers are troubling, Twitter isn’t the only company with a diversity problem. Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn, and Google all reported similar statistics earlier this year.

Similar to these companies, Twitter admits that it has a lot of work to do in the diversity department. As part of its initiative to improve diversity in Silicon Valley, Twitter says that it supports Girls Who Code, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping women get into computer engineering. The social media giant also mentions that it regularly hosts Girl Geek Dinners in San Fransisco and Boston.

Lack of Diversity at Google [May 29, 2014]:

The lack of diversity among Google’s workforce has been highlighted by the company’s first diversity report, which reveals that only 30% of its staff are female.

The search company’s US workforce also comprises 61% white people, with Asian staff making up 30%, Hispanic people 3% and black staff just 2% of employees.

The data highlights the lack of representation of women and ethnic groups in technology companies, despite a much more diverse customer base for mainstream technology products and services.

“Put simply, Google is not where we want to be when it comes to diversity, and it’s hard to address these kinds of challenges if you’re not prepared to discuss them openly, and with the facts,” acknowledged Laszlo Bock, senior vice president of people operations at Google, in a blog post

Google has released this, the first of its diversity reports, because the company believes that an open dialogue about diversity issues is the only way to solve them, something others like Nunno agree is the right course.

Google believes that tackling diversity in computer science education is the way forward, and has donated over $40m (£24m) to organisations aiming to help increase the number of women and girls in science education.

The company is not alone in its efforts to aid science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) diversity in education. Many groups from both the UK and globally have been set up to actively encourage girls into Stem education, while the government has worked to remove barriers to women in science.

The problems facing both gender and ethnic diversity in technology are not insurmountable, but no one organisation can do it alone, according to Nunno, which makes Google’s release of its data a good step forward in tackling the issues as an industry.

We ONLY account for 2% of their work forces?!? I am quite sure that most of those individuals fill the lower-status, lower-paying positions (e.g. support staff, mailroom) like at William Morris Endeavor Entertainment.

What’s crazy is that this is the first time they are releasing diversity reports, although I thought all businesses had to submit this type of data to the EEOC each year. Hmmm…it is clearly industries like this that the EEOC’s Systemic Initiative needs to focus on. If there wasn’t a demand from the public for various companies in Silicon Valley to start releasing information on its workplace demographics, this problem would continue to go unnoticed. Yet, companies like William Morris Endeavor Entertainment and other businesses in Hollywood, as well as other industries like advertising and Wall Street, can continue to maintain their discriminatory employment practices, policies  and procedures without any repercussions or intervention from our government.

At the macro level, how does this impact African American unemployment and why isn’t this REALITY — discrimination occurring in the present — being discussed by the media or our nation’s “first black” President as the cause for why our unemployment numbers in this country have historically remained double that of whites? If Google can acknowledge its wrongs (at least with regards to its lack of gender diversity), why can’t William Morris do the same? They don’t, because after 116 years of spreading racism throughout the world, they have no desire to change. Smdh.

Source: [Twitter] and [Google].



Timothy K. Lewis of Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP refuses to correct glaring errors contained in his Memorandum & Order. Erroneously states that I was seeking for him to “redetermine the merits,” when all I wanted was for him to tell the TRUTH.

Loeb & Loeb LLP, the AAA and federal judge P. Kevin Castel have played this game of semantics with Arbitrator David L. Gregory’s ‘Partial Final Award,’ saying that it wasn’t “final” – although it was with regards to the merits and thus, was “final for the sake of judicial review” since the AAA improperly disqualified him before he could determine the monetary damages that were owed to me.

Although Lewis dismissed the case with “prejudice and on the merits” because I wouldn’t remain silent about the overall fraud that was occurring (which included learning that Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone was married to the Associate General Counsel for the AAA, but never disclosed this information to the SDNY when he sought to compel this case into arbitration or myself at any time over the last 3 years; that Christian’s wife worked with Lewis as a member of the AAA’s diversity committee although Lewis submitted a notarized Notice which stated he did not know any of the parties’ family; that Lewis unlawfully vacated Gregory’s Award in violation of § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act; both arbitrators refusing to properly decide the issue of arbitrability, etc.), the term “Final Award” is mentioned nowhere in his Memorandum & Order. Does this also mean that Lewis’ decision is not “final” as well? Of course not!

I guess the good thing about all of this is that I no longer have to deal with the AAA and its INcompetent, predominately all-white staff.

“Exhibit 31″ has SNR’s (now known as Dentons LLP) name in the Fax ID. They faxed the document to the Willie Gary Firm on October 15, 2002. They have never accused the Willie Gary Firm of creating a fraudulent document…

Yet, all four of Leonard Rowe’s former attorneys continued to lie and commit perjury in their May 2012 Declarations to Republican appointed federal judge Robert P. Patterson (who is now more than 90 years old) by saying no derogatory terms were discovered during Electronic Evidence Discovery’s search of William Morris and Creative Artist Agency’s 1998-1999 back-up tapes – even though Rowe inadvertently found this document on his Raymond Heslin’s desk!

Attorneys from SNR, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP conspired with each other to make sure no smoking gun evidence was ultimately produced during this search or be deemed admissible in a court of law. Rowe and the class of black concert promoters paid $200,000.00 for this search and were defrauded out of obtaining further evidence that would have proven their overall claims of conspiracy and violation of civil rights.

To this day, the underlying e-mails to this document have not produced, although Arbitrator David L. Gregory’s Interim Decision 3, issued on September 25, 2013, compelled WME Entertainment and Loeb & Loeb LLP to produce the e-mails (and other tangible evidence), as well as, granted my request to make the Def. pay the costs of having my e-discovery expert retrieve this discoverable evidence.