I don't really think it'd be that hard, you just have to be willing to do introductory training like companies used to do. Bemoaning the pipeline is lazy. My alma mater (https://www.digipen.edu/about/history/) started as a simulation and animation company, but lacking a talent pool to hire from, they created their own by having a training program and then founding a school with Nintendo for the purpose of growing the video game programmer and 3D animation pools.

So instead of whiteboard hazing, companies like Google could open up some positions to anyone interested (not just those with relevant degrees or experience), filter with a quick IQ test (or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonderlic_test), and if the person passes a threshold, welcome them aboard and start training. There's no pipeline issues now, the only thing that could account for a non-50% split of male and female applicants is an average difference of interest, wherever that comes from.

Even if you start a program to train people because the current pipeline is inadequate, how do you do you achieve a specific ratio of men to women without being willfully discriminatory.

Admission criteria should be blind to protected characteristics like gender and race.

nobody said it would be easy.

fight to hire minorities by at least having one representative in each round of interviews for every opening.

with time, you might be the one company that hired that one role model that fixes the problem down the road.

but if you just go ahead and shrug that no minorities applied when you only advertised your opening in your facebook/linkedin, instead of taking the time to post in job sites, newspapers and other medias, then you are part of the problem.

This attitude of "non-action makes you part of the problem" is counter-productive as it relies on shame to achieve it's goal and shame as a tactic is one that many are adverse to and actively reject.

It's perfectly okay to remain neutral and not get involved. In fact, if more people remained neutral (and were allowed to be neutral), the quality of discourse today would be a lot better because we would be allowed to be individuals instead of being forced to choose sides in an "us versus them" conflict. Furthermore, not allowing people to remain neutral is often a bedfellow of demanding ideological purity.

you are still using excuses to not do more work to include minorities. so, yes, you are part of the problem.

Well I just informed you that shaming tactics and forcing people to choose sides (as opposed to convincing them to participate) is counter-productive to your cause, so that actually makes you part of the problem.

The issue at hand, "do more work to include minorities", is red herring. The cause celebre involved is irrelevant.

yet the time you spend on those replies you could have posted a few jobs you have open on boards that older unemployed programmers frequent, or black community forums, etc.

The grand irony of your comment is that I am out of San Francisco right now in another American city doing 4-6 engineering interviews a day for a week. A little over a month ago I was in Latin America doing the same. So I am in fact going to places to recruit engineers not representative of Silicon Valley.

That however still doesn't change the fact that your toxic approach of "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" makes you part of the problem. Forcing duality is highly counterproductive.