Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they t

Thanks for your patient response. That's how I infer that, for example, power wants equal outcomes rather than equal treatment - virtually every action they take favors the former. That's arguably true regarding the apparent intent of the interventions in higher education in the US, but what about the actual outcomes? While we probably can't do a controlled experiment, assume multiple versions of you of different seses, races, and economic backgrounds, but starting life with equal "merit" on some scale. How would you price the options on the economic future of each "you"? Would an objective third party ever pay more at birth for a share of the lifetime wages of the "you" who is the apparent beneficiary of the government policies? Regardless of the apparent intent of the government to tilt the scales in favor of the historically disadvantaged, I think I'd always be betting on the "you" that looks, talks, and acts like the children of the politicians in power. I'd conclude from this that "power" does not actually prefer equal outcomes, and but that there are benefits from the appearance of preferring equal opportunity without actually taking actions that make it happen. I find this more compelling than assuming that "power" really does strive for equal outcomes but is too weak to achieve them, although I can't actually eliminate this possibility. He first claims that equal treatment must result in equal outcomes, but immediately retreats from that when I point out that if he's right, algorithms are no threat. I also disagree with his logic, but I suspect you are jumping to an incorrect conclusion when you attempt to explain the mental process he's using. I think he is probably using a different definition of "merits" than you are. You are looking at the "finished" individual (the product of their upbringing, environment, education) whereas he seems to be reserving "merits" to describe the "blank slate" prior to these. I find your argument more compelling, but I don't think you are correctly characterizing his argument.