I'd argue that it's not the jobs of universities or employers to try to "fudge the difference" between actual outcomes and what they believe outcomes should be. By that I mean, just because not everybody has equal access to education doesn't mean employers and universities should be lowering their hiring standards (like it or not, this is what affirmative action necessitates) for people belonging to groups that on average come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Not only is it bad for business or the academic reputation of the university, it can also do more harm than good by placing people from disadvantaged groups in environments they are not prepared for, harming their growth and unnecessarily exposing them to discouraging failure.

So by that I mean, why can't we just evaluate individuals based on their own merits? If you want to stop inequality, fight to stop inequality of opportunity. Stopping inequality of outcomes makes little sense.

I get what you mean, and I don't think we're doing a terrible job at giving fair education for most. I would hope that companies use merit as primary measure in hiring candidates. However, there should be more than just merit that employers should consider. "Fit"ness may be one. Maybe the job doesn't require overqualified candidates. Merit doesn't always have to equal technical excellence.

Equal access to education can never produce fully equal abilities or equal candidates. Two people are essentially never identical in their capabilities regardless of education. One person will always be 'smarter,' more creative, better at math, have a better memory, write code better/faster/cleaner/etc, whatever-pick-your-thing-here. Most of the world's population could never be capable of being a top 1% programmer, by sheer mental capabilities at birth. Education can never fix the fact that people are not all equally capable of the same things mentally.

Agreed, but I think the point here is that when access to education is the problem, suing the employer is a bad solution.