I would advise fighting for equity to mean "distribution of resources to enable equal opportunity" rather than "capitalism with a diversity coating"

If you allow people to use the term incorrectly, you're allowing the term to grow/evolve into a meaning that harms the ability to accurately convey the concept you're trying to describe.

So with all that said, to respond to your question: Perhaps you've seen it used that way. That is not what equity means though.

Not if done right, no. Affirmative action is an example of equity - in an equality scenario anyone can go for a job. Great concept in theory but in reality we end up with existing systems bias taking over and corrupting it. So you jam a fork into that bias by saying 'well dipshit, ya gotta hire x of this and x of that as part of your build'

Lmao yes actually. Never trust a black cop. Diversity hires, if in a powerful position at all, are... Theoretically just minorities who buy into the system, serve shareholders just the same.

Equity on the left is usually about progressivism and social mobility for children and students in public schools. Or that 10% low income houskng in apartment buildings so poor people can live near the well-off. We struggle to control for people's outcomes. One example of trying to fix outcomes was college admission Affirmative Action. That was, I believe, an imperfect bandaid solution. And it became unpopular enough to be removed. Even unions are open up to failure to create equity. Unions can go wrong and support racial or gendered policies, or tiered employee benefits. So I believe the sentiment you bring up is something to keep in mind always.

Yep, and a person born with a sense of ineptitude or laziness will need more given to them than someone who has more drive and aptitude.