Sorry, by "qualities" I meant "intrinsic potential". There are all manner of factors, including marital status, income, culture, societal expectations, etc. etc. that modulate how that potential is actualized in the individual's emotional and intellectual phenotype and in their life experience.

So, no, the different groups do not have a similar outcome (obviously), but the better you control for the factors above, the less important "race" seems to be as an explanatory variable, such that the intrinsic potential seems unlikely to be strongly race-dependent.

Perhaps the clearest indication of this is that third-generation Asians, in contrast to second-generation who seem to overperform, tend towards middling distributions of achievement. The handwavy but very plausible argument is that because these kids have more Americanized parents, and are Americanized themselves, they no longer benefit from a widespread Asian culture that values education (and, perhaps, self-sacrifice to benefit one's children).

You do make some good points about what happens when equity goes to the extreme and no distinctions are made any longer. You also seem to make some unjustified assumptions. But, anyway, you asked for definitions, so I gave definitions and reasons to seek more of such things. But I mis-spoke regarding potential vs. actualized ability / background.

(Aside: if you are in an area where a group X has their skills systematically underdeveloped compared to group Y, then at a given measured level of competence, you should prefer people of group X to Y because on average they'll have more room to grow providing that you can now provide them full developmental potential. This is a solid pro-equity argument in any area where you can demonstrate bias against X. However, it needs to be a quantitative argument to be an actual basis for policy: how much additional growth potential does X have, how completely are you providing an unfettered environment, etc..)