Similar tech could be used to mask accents.
I suspect the real reason people are so hesitant to anonymize interviews is that the disparities will persist - or even grow larger - and it'll be more difficult to ascribe it to racism or sexism.
If technology could be developed which masked pitch, accent, idioms, patterns and approach, I suspect it would change hiring rates.
I suspect the reason you think such technology wouldn’t improve the situation is because you’re a bigot.
This is already possible. Idioms are more specific, but how often do you encounter an identifying idiom in a technical phone interview? I'm even struggling to think of an idiom that would distinguish, say, an Asian applicant from a white applicant. Idioms are more culturally-specific not racially specific. I encounter greater differences in idioms between urban and rural people than along racial lines.
"Patterns and approach" are part of the software development skills being measured - it's like saying a blind orchestra discriminates between people of different musical skill.
> I suspect the reason you think such technology wouldn’t improve the situation is because you’re a bigot.
Did you miss the empirical evidence to the contrary linked earlier? Regardless, let's start using anonymous hiring tools and find out who's right. I'm all for it, and if it does improve URM and women's pass rates, great! But again, for some reason, those who most ardently claim that interviews are biased against "diverse" candidates are oddly resistant to anonymization.
