What you hear me saying is that you didn't even acknowledge classical liberalism as an option. (Or the highly regressive extreme of whites-first group-identity politics.)

If you want to argue for something else, that's fine, but it's not convincing if you don't address the dominant alternative option.

(Also--I think it's easy to argue that the U.S. has never been about equity, but I'm not sure it's supportable that it isn't about equality, even if the aspiration isn't reached in practice as often as one would hope. I'm not sure this is the proper place for such a discussion, though.)

In particular, you say "classical liberalism only works for white people in reality". But even if that's true, it's worth asking: (1) why, and (2) what is the smallest possible change to classical liberalism such that it would work for everyone? Or is it so fundamentally broken that any sufficient change would render it unrecognizable?

Finally, it's abhorrent that anyone would refuse personhood to any person even if they had zero degrees--but this view is shared by classical liberalism. Indeed, the ideal of classical liberalism, with its focus on individuality, is that everyone should be respected as a person, and that if they have higher level degrees, that accomplishment and those corresponding skills should also be respected. Perhaps the methods of classical liberalism are not up to the task of meeting its ideals, though.

I am profoundly sorry that you have lived at a time when your personhood has not been universally and adequately recognized. Hopefully at least our descendants will, at some point, no longer suffer this indignity.