Ages ago, I witnessed the execs toss resumes with "funny sounding names". One of those anecdotal experiences that made a huge impression on me. Having grown up surrounded by immigrants and misc POC -- people are just people -- chucking resumes based on non-whiteness really pissed me off.
This issue always reminds me of symphony auditions. To remove bias, candidates perform behind a screen.
The caveat that gives me pause is the burden of filtering out "spam" resumes. It was such a chore the last time I helped with hiring. I can only imagine it's gotten worse.
Perhaps resumes should be deanonymized by HR. Two step process. First, potential applicants are authenticated. Next, PII is stripped before the hiring team gets the bulk of the resumes.
But what do I know? Hiring and interviewing is snafu everywhere these days. Adding more hoops and friction will probably fly like a lead zeppelin.
I've worked with people I never met, never saw their photo or real name or heard their voice. As long as they communicate somehow and produce work needed, isn't that enough?
Isn't this preferable though, when there's hopefully other, more meaningful, evidence that can potentially mitigate these easy but weaker biases?
It's also an illusion that not having pictures on the resume will reduce Bias in favor of attractive people. It will only push it to a later stage of the interview process.