The primary goal of the Google company ought to be to earn a profit, and the more the better. That is the fundamental source of capital for the business whether based on reinvestment of current profits or the investment of outside capital based on future expectations of profit. It is also a fundamental that the return to shareholders be maximized.

The current kerfuffle over the firing of software engineer James Damore following his participation in an internal debate or discussion about “diversity” in the Google workplace has overshadowed concern about the primary reason for Google’s existence. At least that is the case until shinier baubles attract the attention of both mainstream and social media.

Nevertheless, this story had legs for awhile. It ran in virtually every major media outlet and attracted attention worldwide. It would, given the global stature of the business.

Some of the most worthy commentary came from Daniel Greenfield of the David Horowitz Freedom Center and to my great surprise, an opinion published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The latter contributor was Marni Soupcoff, who pointed out the essential that Google had every right to fire Damore and that business was business. Greenfield’s commentary had more to do with criticising the culture of political correctness at Google.

There are many other angles to this story, from the lawsuit by Damore to the hysterical storm of social media commentary from many sources of censorial indignation. The interesting thing is there is a solid swell of support for Damore on the basis of a free speech. Again, Google has the right to set its conditions of employment.

The fundamental is still violated however. Google doesn’t have its eye on the primary goal if its obsession is with the enforcement of the anti-conceptual notion of “diversity”. This obsession with the idea that the employees of large businesses, university campuses or government must statistically reflect the ethnic, racial, gender or “sexual identity” of the population at large defies the reality that people are individuals not varied patches on some quilt of the imagination.

Diversity of the makeup of said employees by virtue of different material or spiritual (conscious individual choices) factors will occur naturally not by the design of a central planning committee.

As for Google shareholders, I would suggest they watch the value of their investment for signs of weakness in the future.