Equality of opportunity by law shall be held to a higher degree than Equality of outcome

As William F. Buckley, The Father of modern day Conservatism once said in a 1968 televised debate against Gore Vidal, "Freedom Begets Inequality" and this is true in every politically driven institution that has ever existed. Freedom and Equality share an antithetical relationship, in which as personal individual freedoms increase, our choices lead us to different spectrums of various fields (In this case, a different income bracket). If a leviathan-like big brother government were to guarantee equality of outcomes at the expense of our individual freedoms, it would inevitably result in a loss of incentive amongst a population typically bent on earning money and bettering their societal status. One must understand that individuals hold varying morals, perspectives and contain different attributes that dictate whether or not they are inept or completely capable of taking up different positions, nobody is subject to their own race. Morally and in terms of practicality, it is more attractive for a society to functionally present its citizens with the promise of equality of opportunity by law rather than equality of outcome by law, and this can be seen in the extremity between a state run economy and one that is almost entirely dependent on the free market. You claim that it is impossible for us to measure equality of opportunity by law without equality of outcome, to which I say is incorrect. Under the constitution of the United States for example, or any constitution of any developed nation for that matter, are clauses and amendments that guarantee the rights and opportunities of each and every one of its citizens regardless of the differing factors that you have mentioned. You provide examples of different situations that include the need to evaluate the ethnicity of a certain group, which begets an argument between the values of individualism vs collectivism. In the case of the exchange student example provided, neither of us would agree that subjectivity within applications to universities on the bias of race, sex, age would constitute for a valid argument against my position of equality of opportunity by law, as if one is to be discriminated against due to his or her uncontrollable attribute, it goes against the conservative agenda of equality regardless of race, religion, condition, etc. The problem with your position is that it relies completely on the idea of collectivization, and the need to reach a proportional amount of numbers based off of a certain criteria that is primarily genetic, while completely neglecting qualifications that anyone has the opportunity of achieving (In your case of hiring). I shall give you a more accurate depiction of the two equalities for which we are discussing. Equality of opportunity completely disregards the need to take into account ones group identity, as it prioritizes ones qualifications and individual abilities, while equality of outcome primarily values groups on the basis of their group identities, seeing how groups are currently "systematically oppressed" (in the case of quotas). If 10 students were to be prepared for an exam that took place a week after they were told, in which each student were given equal study material, then regardless of how each student spends their time preparing or the examination results (Most likely nobody would obtain the exact same results) that would be an example of equality of opportunity. Equality of Outcome entails that regardless of your test result, you will achieve a grade mark set entirely by what the school demands, and in accordance to the wealth given to its citizens under purely Communist society's, it would not be a high mark. It is not only morally acceptable to achieve a society that provides equality of opportunity by law, but is also one that proves successful. Do not claim that the left wing supports an ideology that is dominant in terms of "fairness" than Conservatives. It is not fair to prioritize ones ethnicity over ones qualifications, nor is it fair to subjugate a race to abuse for atrocities that have taken place hundreds of years ago that are out of the control of the very race you are insulting. I would argue that it is more "fair" to determine people on the basis of their individual ability, something they have control over than to determine people on the basis of their group or ethnic identity, something they have no control over. And if you may be confused to why I am bringing race (or any uncontrollable identity) to this debate, it is merely because equality of outcome today determines the outcomes that will ensue depending on the proportion of these very identities.