but everyone knows that racial discrimination ended in 1964 and that, therefore, any differences observed in populations is due entirely to inherent genetic differences
kind of like how women earn less than men because they're inherently inferior beings, and any arguments about sexual discrimination and social pressures to pursue less well-paying careers or dedicate extra time to family are just SJW nonsense
EDIT: it has been brought to my attention that the second paragraph/sentence could be construed as offensive
for the sake of clarity, i should indicate that unless you believe women deserve to be paid less because they are women and therefore inherently less valuable, i am not attempting to caricature your beliefs into an easily mocked strawman
Except that you don't end discrimination, either through race or gender, by forcing more people in to places they don't want to be or don't belong. There are issues, but they aren't at the end point where minorities get into universities or women get paid.
Minorities are less likely to have good education because of where they live and how they live. Minority families have consistently been screwed out of the "real estate investment" trade since the end of WW2. Returning white soldier from WW2 invests in a decent little house in a nice neighborhood and pays it off in a few, maybe 10 years. Lives in it for 50 years and it passes onto kids, who reap the huge property value increase which then goes on to provide for a more comfortable life and pay for the educations of the kids growing up now. Returning black soldier from WW2 tries to do the same, except they're stuck in government created minority zones. Racism still existing in a very harsh way for the next 30-40 years. (Not saying it's gone, but it's nothing like it was) results in property value decreases in those zones. This results in several things, starting with those families losing out on that property investment. Much of the property in those zones will not have gone up in value nearly as much, and in some cases doesn't even keep up with inflation, so it's a net loss.
Lower property value translates to lower wages, lower quality schools, and more work to keep a family running. Children in poor families don't have the same sort of parental support, because the parents are forced to spend a disproportionate amount of time working just to keep the lights on and food on the table. The children are also expected to do more around the house, either house work, or taking care of siblings, or in some cases even working to provide more income for the home. This also cuts into time which might be used for school.
This all results in a group of kids who aren't going to good schools to begin with and fail to see the value of education, who are forced to move into a workforce early by lack of a familial safety net, which further makes education seem like a waste of time and money, and finally simply lack the ability to pay, except through the thorough application of crippling, inescapable, life long debt, to go to a good school, even if they wanted to after all of that.
It may have started out as racism, 50+ years ago, that kept black people and other minorities out of good schools, but now it's just the knock on consequences of those racist decisions that have never really been resolved, or even acknowledged. Classism is the real issue now. It just happens that because of the past, the classes are painted disproportionately in various skin colors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlininghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_steeringAs for the gender pay comment. As many people have pointed out, it's almost exclusively an issue where women take time to have babies. So again you're treating a symptom rather than the cause if you want just a flat increase in women's pay across the board. Give more options in taking time off for pregnancies, either in government mandated leave, or split leave between parents, or some sort of improved system where you're given a security net while you're gone and guaranteed a job when you return no matter how long you take off (probably reasonably limited to the age of the child with 18 being a likely extreme upper limit and school entry age being a lower limit). Also a better support system to take care of kids from birth to school age would help immensely. Many families are given the choice of a second income + childcare costs which often amount to a large portion of that second income, or simply losing that second income for a parent to stay home for several years. And things simply get more expensive and more inclined to losing that second income if more than one child is in the picture and they're all in that age bracket before they start school.