There has never been equal opportunity. This is clear. The reasons why opportunity has not been equal is becoming more clear, regardless which side of the nature versus nurture debate you fall on. Equal outcome should not be the goal (test scores and grades are not the best nor only indicator the likelihood of success). The goal should be equal access.
For me, access implies the right, opportunity reflects the demonstration of those rights.
There are a lot of examples of equal access to programs in this country, by the letter of the law, but in practice locally, folks were unable to access these opportunities.
The FHA most immediately comes to mind. The letter of the law of FHA versus local implementation by local banks, bank executives, realtors, mortgage brokers, even home sellers were able deny opportunity though technically these programs were accessible to all.
Your argument is a misnomer, equal access is just a restatement of belief in equal rights. Equal opportunity is the belief that everyone should be given a level playing field.
People don't benefit from Yale from the lectures. They benefit from the brand name and alumni you get to be associated with. Which is because Yale restricts admission to people who have high probability of being influential.
So it's really just an exclusive club and not about education and knowledge building at all? Okay, you simply reenforce my point. It's a signalling mechanism for cargo cult employers who would rather simply hire from Yale than do the work of actually assessing people's capabilities. It needs to go the way of the dodo.
