But you’re talking about something completely different. You can judge bad/good resumes in the absence of information about the applicant’s gender. If your go

But you’re talking about something completely different. You can judge bad/good resumes in the absence of information about the applicant’s gender. If your goal is (for example) to achieve a 65/35 male/female hiring ratio and your pool of resumes is 90/10 male/female, you will find it very difficult to do so in a completely blind manner, because you _don’t_ have any distinguishing information with which to pare down the pool in a positive manner anymore. For example: 500 total resumes for one position. 90% are unqualified => 50 good ones. Assuming equal representation here, 45 of those resumes will be from men, 5 will be from women. You narrow it down to say 25 resumes for initial online screens (no voice chat so you can keep things gender-neutral!). Call it 22/3 male/female at this point. Second round, online again (there’s even been companies that have done voice changing during interviews so they can have real conversations!). Half get cut. Let’s call it 11/2 male/female now. How likely do you think it is that a man will get the position versus a woman? How likely do you think you’ll be to achieve a “good” gender balance in hiring over time using this strategy?