Blind hiring _might_ work: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/is-blind-hiring-...

To ignore gender this should be combined with gender-neutral voice processing for phone interviews, but it’s doable and not that hard.

These guys tried it out, I'll leave the interpretation of the conclusion to the reader

http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

(yes, its inconclusive, but)

> for technical ability, it appeared that men who were modulated to sound like women did a bit better than unmodulated men and that women who were modulated to sound like men did a bit worse than unmodulated women. Though these trends weren’t statistically significant, I am mentioning them because they were unexpected and definitely something to watch for as we collect more data.

What if the candidate went to Wellesley or Howard? What happens if the person went to university in Africa or Latin America? What if you puts SWE or NSBE on the resume, or obtained a merit-based UNCF scholarship and mentioned that as an achievement? The blind hiring system would fall flat pretty quickly.

What happens after the person is hired?

You stop discrimination by changing the brand. Many people have the impression that women aren't good at STEM, so hire more high quality women. Can't find enough of them? Grow your own. Google can start free bootcamps and apprenticeships aimed at women (men are welcomed too of course, just like women in engineering groups), don't graduate them until they meet a certain level of excellence. It might be more expensive, but rebranding is not cheap.

How do you create a bootcamp/apprenticeship system aimed at women, but is gender neutral in terms of admissions?