Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
Jordy P has a bit of a thing about the concept of equity.
One thing that came out of his debate with Zizek is that Peterson hasn't actually read any Marx except the communist manifesto. This is relevant because Jordan Peterson thinks that Marxism is fundamentally about the pursuit of equity. That seems to be his main issue with it. The problem is, he's just wrong, just straight up wrong in a way that should surprise noone
because he openly admits he hasn't read anything. If he wasn't up against another useless hack old man who for some reason decided to treat him with a wholly undeserved civility, he'd have been comprehensively taken apart for that nonsense.
What you're talking about, and what Peterson likes to ramble incoherently about, has little to do with equity. It has far more to do with meritocracy. We all kind of think that we want to live in a meritocracy, we want to live in a world where people who do good things are rewarded. The problem is that
people like Jordan Peterson think that we already live in a meritocracy. He thinks that neoliberal capitalism is a meritocratic system that intrinsically rewards merit or virtue, and that anything that seems to contradict this fact must be the result of some evil conspiratorial force, the dreaded postmodernism or cultural Marxism (although I think even he is too smart to actually use that term).
So here's the thing, you say Asian Americans are being discriminated against in testing. I could apply the same logic to that as Peterson does to other forms of discrimination and just say "Well, work harder. Stop indulging an ideology based on bitterness and grievance. Why are you spending your time worrying about whether other people have it easier than you? Just accept that whatever disadvantages you face your ability or inability to achieve whatever you want is entirely within your control." Is that convincing? Does that make you feel better?
Because in effect, that's what you're saying to other minorities who are disadvantaged within the education system. "Sure, the history of redlining has resulted in you being trapped in a segregated school system with less resources. Maybe if you stopped making excuses for yourself that wouldn't be a problem." "Sure, maybe you grew up in a culture that has developed a scepticism or mistrust towards education due to intergenerational experiences of discrimination, but you still have the same opportunities as everyone else so just get over it."
This is how you think when you think you live in a meritocracy, but we don't live in a meritocracy. If you removed affirmative action or programs designed to help underprivileged minorities, the world would not magically become a meritocracy.
Think about what you're actually saying. You're saying that living in a world where your educational outcomes and standard of living being determined in large part by your race is fine, in fact it's good, because some races (Asians and presumably white people) are just better than everyone else. You're saying that the ability of people to work hard and act in ways conducive to their own success is not based on their circumstances, it's an intrinsic property of their race. Because that's the only way you can look at the world we live in and believe that everyone has the same equality of opportunity.
At the end of the day, there isn't a magic separation between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome because, much as the right likes to claim otherwise, most people are for the most part fundamentally very similar to each other. Asians are not a superior race who are intrinsically better at education. The fact that Asians are more likely to value education than many other minorities, and the fact that they are more likely to be accepted in academic environments and viewed as academically able because of racial stereotyping, is not the result of anyone's individual merit. This decontextualized notion of merit does not exist, because we are all the product of an environment we do not fully control.
There are many reasons to be disappointed in existing affirmative action programs. They are imperfect solutions based on compromise, and sometimes they're extremely imperfect solutions. But if you're going to claim that everyone would have "equal opportunities" without them, then where is your evidence?