Have a paper from 1997. It's about how after they changed to blind auditions, the number of women hired as orchestra musicians rose severalfold. I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions.
http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-an...
In contrast, I think most of those who oppose the diversity activists (e.g. myself) strongly favor such approaches ("death by standardized brainteaser", hire by github, work sample tests).
However, did you even read the article that you linked to?? Someone posted a link showing that if you blindfold people (so they just listen to how people play), you end up with more women in orchestras. The Ashe Dryden article is about how using open source contributions as a sole barometer of 'merit' leaves an awful lot of talented people out in the cold.
The only point where she mentions anything close to your point is when she says that many female developers use androgynous sounding names and won't put pictures of themselves online.
My claim is that most activists in tech don't really believe that bias is the cause of underrepresentation here. As evidence for that, observe how few such activists actually favor purely meritocratic hiring.
a) Ask for code samples.
b) Pair as an interview.
c) Hire as a contractor before you make an offer of employment.
She does not dispute the existence of bias, rather she makes the point that valuing open source so heavily makes technology less of a meritocracy.
The entire article is about how using github (i.e. evaluating code with the human absent, i.e. the closest thing [1] we currently have to blind auditions) is "biased" against women.
[1] Maybe we'll have something closer when starfighter comes out. I look forward to it.
I can't speak personally about race issues in tech. What I do know is that the industry thrives on ideas, and as people themselves have diverse ideas, missing an entire group's is missing a lot. Why isn't the field more racially diverse? Are black people 'naturally not interested in tech'? Or do they face social barriers others don't? What I know leads me to believe the latter.
'people such as women'? Poe's Law has bested me on this one.
"such as some women like CEO of Reddit" would be better. The original does make it seems like all women.
So there's the whole problem right there. Never mind right or wrong. Its just statistics and bias in group dynamics, nothing more.
I'm sure there are other occupation with the same thing. There are too many Fillipino in Nurse career I don't see any body saying to diversify it. There are tons of Vietnamese in nails, my uncle and mother included. I don't see people saying that there should be other race within such jobs. You can argue that it's not a great jobs but what about nursing?
We can encourage more women and minority within a field which is fine. But to make it seems like a problem is a problem. Because of this people such as women will use this as an excuse. Look at the CEO of Reddit, she used this and sexism as an excuse.
So before we jump the gun and say such thing such as racist and sexist, we should carefully find the cause and not jump the gun. We do not know if this is intentional or an unintentional the consequences of culture.
I mean hell there's a lot of Asian going to university and a lot of less other color such as Black. Is it because Asian are racist against other races? No, it's culture and the Pew report for Asian Americans have backed this up. That Asian American parent believe an education is important.