I can't see how you made the jump from "character and ability" to "resume"–one's name is not one's character nor one's ability.
In fact the submission by the founder of interviewing.io seems to imply that more technical evaluations (focus on ability) lead to more diversity:
> At interviewing.io, we rely entirely on performance in anonymous technical interviews - not resumes - to surface top-performing candidates, and 40% of hires are people from non-traditional backgrounds and underrepresented groups
What if there is no resume, as in the case I cited? I did not find original poster's stated goals to be disagreeable: hire based on character and ability. If it means the tech industry moves towards blind auditions, as the case is with certain music auditions, so be it.
The alternative is to artificially add advantages to one group, and like the poster said, it leads to resentment and people questioning if a job was given for merit or quota. And I would add that the focus in jobs becomes more of a political and social one, as your in-group fights for process advantages, versus focusing on skill.
So you've given up completely? It seems to me that we've only scratched the surface of what we could be doing process-wise. The US isn't even that bad, in lots of other countries, a photo gets attached to your resume. I go back to the blind audition idea because this actually worked: https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/...
So what similar ideas can we do in tech? I don't need to know someone's name to read a resume, in fact a unique identifier would be more useful than a name.
In fact the submission by the founder of interviewing.io seems to imply that more technical evaluations (focus on ability) lead to more diversity:
> At interviewing.io, we rely entirely on performance in anonymous technical interviews - not resumes - to surface top-performing candidates, and 40% of hires are people from non-traditional backgrounds and underrepresented groups