'Equality' may be the broad concept, but 'equal' is an adjective. It, by necessity, follows the same logic as 'efficiency': it modifies something else, something substantial. 'Equality' is, therefore, what Kant referred to as a Regulatory concept. It doesn't add any more content to a judgement, it just reorganises what is already there.
So I disagree that we should, say, for example, talk not of 'equality', but 'equity'. Or 'liberation'. Doesn't this sort of reasoning forget that the demand for 'equality' in some way or another already is liberatory?
Equality is not the stultifying or rigid demand they say it is. Equality is endlessly fine-grained; completely liquid; totally edifying. you're only a bigot if your calls for equality are used for the purpose of death.
But doesn't that contradict the very sense that 'equality' is meant to have?