> This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. It very obviously is not. The equity proponents are extremely vocal ab

> This is the direct inverse of what's actually asserted by people talking about equity. It very obviously is not. The equity proponents are extremely vocal about expecting equal outcomes; their metrics are stated entirely in terms of equality of outcome; they can constantly be observed decrying people as bigoted specifically for arguing for equality of opportunity instead. You were shown clear evidence of this downthread, and you pivoted and failed to engage squarely with a very simple argument. I want to make sure this is perfectly clear. When you say "getting a score of x on the SAT qualifies you for university", you are doing equality of opportunity. When you say "getting a score of f(x) on the SAT qualifies you for university, where f is chosen such that the racial makeup of university entrants matches the racial makeup of {applicants, the local general population, ...}", you are doing equality of outcome. ...And probably also violating the law, although of course it's up to the courts whether this constitutes a "racial quota", Princeton (per the opinion piece, and also Yale and Duke) substantively did the latter, which is how https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v._Harvard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair_Admissions_v... happened. As it happens, Students for Fair Admissions won their case. (The policies in question were also likely detrimental, overall, to white students, but it was politically impossible for a white student group to bring such a case. You can see that even in the linked opinion piece, the discrimination against Asians is described as pro-white even though white students still had to do much better than black students to be given the same level of consideration.) > Providing a hearing aid to someone hard of hearing so they can learn is equity. This is disproven by both rhetoric and observable policy. It's all based on equality-of-outcome metrics; every disparity of outcome is directly cited to justify the claim that the work is not done. Either equality of opportunity is conflated with equality of outcome; or it is not actually the goal and any claims of such are dishonest.