You do not have to remove opportunity from one person to grant it to another. They both can have the same opportunity, and then will compete between themselves naturally, which is as it should be.
Sure, I totally agree. In a perfect world, merit is enough and if you're black, gay, female, muslim, transgender, alt-right supporter or flat earther does not matter, as long as that does not pose a problem with what you're supposed to do (a flat-earther could be a great programmer, but I wouldn't hire him/her as an astronomer).
Sad truth is, it does not work this way atm, and fixing it is painfully hard for multiple reasons. Quotas try to do that in an imperfect way, sure. But I think it's good that someone is at least 1. acknowledging the problem 2. doing something practical to fix it.
So, concretely, how do you propose we fix prejudice and discrimination in this context? Because saying and knowing how it "should" be, does not magically make it happen...
[edit]: ..and unfortunately I don't think anonymous interview can be used everywhere.
> how do you propose we fix prejudice and discrimination in this context
Discussion about equality usually don't get to this point, but in hope that it might someday get started I will try to give an proposed answer.
First we need to expand the context, and I will use Swedish numbers for that. 90% of the employed population work in a gender segregated profession, same for both men and women. It is a known phenomena (sometimes called a paradox) that the more a society works towards equality the more segregated society gets. The best theory I have heard for it is that people will self segregate when given multiple similar valued choices, as going with the group one identify with carries with it a higher self confidence level in that choice on average.
So one obvious fix is to address that very aspect. Understanding that people will have on average a lower self confidence when they decide to go into a group where they are a minority. Make the interview process or trial period better suited for low confidence participants and it will benefit minority groups more, while at the same time not being discriminate to the majority. A mentor program is a prime example which has shown good results in equality programs, and I would bet that is because it addresses this.
Less practical on a company level but possible on a national one would be to address how and when individuals make career choices, and what the influences are. If we expect that a 15 year old to make a critical decision to decide which path to study and later find a job in, it should surprise no one that friends make for a major influence. Look at the school yard and its clear how self segregated kids become based on gender, race, sexual orientation, economic class and so on. The school system could be designed to improve self confidence and self-esteem, and in times where suicide has risen to the most common cause of death for men between the age of 15 to 60 it seems it would also be a major health benefit.
