True equality requires unequal treatment for at least some time.
Image two people, like a woman and a men, or a black person and a white person. The woman / black person make 80% of the income of the men / white person for 40 years. At 40 years time all people get the same income for another 20 years. To make the math easier we'll just assume $20k per year is 100%.
The woman / black person have a wealth of $640,000 and the man / white person have $800,000 after 40 years. After 60 years we're at $1,040,000 for the former and $1,400,00 for the latter. Is this disparity in wealth equality to you?
This is a real problem that discrimination and "equality" currently have, whoever was ahead before things were equalized will still continue to lead forever, and whoever was behind will continue to lag behind.
A great example in the US is the wealth disparity between families that were enslaved and families that weren't. Since emancipated slaves often had nothing but the shirts on their back and were still heavily discriminated against they had it harder to build wealth than their white counterparts at the time. This directly affected their children who were also poorer. In general, the generational wealth has grown much slower for black people in the US than for white people, so even if we now have full equality somehow, they will forever lag behind assuming the wealth will continue to grow at equal rates for everyone.
This is in part why the late Martin Luther King Jr advocated for reparations for the black people, to ensure they can actually catch up at some point, instead of perpetually lagging behind.
To answer your question: no it isn't. And yes that is a problem, and yes it's been going on for a very long time, especially in the US that loathes socialism.
In fact I agree with pretty much everything you said, save for the conclusion.
Suggesting correction through discrimination is not equality.
Let me give you an example. I have a friend who worked all his adult life at Walmart. He has no parents, no family to rely on.
Is he, or was he, at a personal level, "ahead of the curve". No of course not.
Yet the current politics would have you discriminate against him regardless, whether he's actually done something to deserve it.
Also comes the question: When will "enough" counter discrimination be "enough"? How long will the children have to pay the consequences for that? How many generations?
There are already more universalist answers to that if you look at most European countries. Someone who unfortunately has a more fragile health doesn't get to live in fear because we collectively handle the cost of healthcare. There are measures in place for all kids to access the same level of education to promote equality of chance to succeed in your studies and career. There are laws against inequalities of incomes, and companies that discriminate during the hiring process get severely punished, as it is (I believe?) the same in the US now.
The US are just so ridiculously behind when it comes to these questions, especially when it comes to healthcare and education, that I'm not surprised that more drastic solutions become more popular, but they aren't more just, they're just reversing the problem.