5 equally qualified people with similar experience apply for a job, they are of different racial backgrounds, genders and sexual orientations, maybe one or more are disabled - The person who gets the job gets it because they're the best fit, NOT because they're the one legged black lesbian, but they had the OPPORTUNITY to all compete, it might be the unipod, melanin enriched rug muncher just as easily as the ordinary white bloke from Barnsley.
Lol no, though congratulations on learning angry capital letters!
Picking the candidate that the company thinks is the best fit / will make them the most money has almost zero to do with equality of opportunity. That is merely capitalism.
1000 people applied for the above job and the 5 you mention were shortlisted and interviewed. All were Harvard graduates, all from private schools and all from rich familes. The one who got the job was the daughter of a company director. Is that still equality of opportunity? Merely the opportunity to apply? The opportunity to interview if sufficiently monged in some category or other might be, as in a guaranteed interview due to said mongness...
She was the best fit as she would intrinsically be trusted.
You accuse me of not knowing what the terms mean and your own example isn't even an example. At best it would be equality under the law, that no candidates were actually barred from applying in the first place. What if the job were only advertised in the Harvard alumni magazine?
In fact you are merely defining it in opposition to equality of outcome, and therefore conflating the two.
You can split equality of opportunity into formal and substantive. Formal is merely the sufficiency of opportunity roughly analagous to your idealistic wibble above, it does not deal with the systemic inequalities which lead to your 5 equally qualified people and 995 lesser qualified. Though as I pointed out this is just the company's self interest anyway... And therefore irrelevant.
Substantive equality of opportunity on the other hand attempts to deal with the way the candidates are prepared both through experience and any other ways and means, such as education, which might impact upon their success... It is a spectrum.
Both are theories of equality of opportunity.
What you miss here is that no-one truly knows why they are turned down. The 4 equally qualified people who missed out will consider this to merely be nepotism, the 995 who didn't get an interview will assume it is rigged, that they were discriminated against because they went to a different university. The successful candidate will feel that her years of hard work were rewarded and that the interviewers gave her the job despite hating her Dad.
In the actual real world if 5 equal candidates existed then the best looking would likely get the job. Should we have equality for ugly people?
Merely the right to have your CV thrown straight in the bin, to apply, is not in itself an example of equality of opportunity. Opportunities are not equal in the real world, and neither are candidates or people.
Then again you seem to live in a world furnished by particularly naive, angry and shouty unicorns who shit rainbow dust so....