Double Standards in Equal Treatment: When Is Differential Treatment Just?

Introduction: Institutionalized Differential Treatment

Individuals are often singled out for different treatment — sometimes in good ways, but often in bad ways. Discrimination, whether formal or informal, has a long history of institutionalized expression. The example of Israel is instructive: Arab citizens living within the state of Israel do not hold the same voting rights as Jewish citizens, and the schools and hospitals in Arab areas are of lesser quality — to say nothing of the conditions faced by people in the West Bank. In a parallel inequity running the other direction, holders of Israeli passports are barred from entering many Arab countries, a restriction that applies to them uniquely. These examples illustrate how differential treatment, when embedded in law or policy, shapes the everyday lives of entire communities.

Informal Barriers and Private Discrimination

Not all differential treatment is institutionalized; much of it operates informally. The glass ceiling for women is a clear example. While no legal barrier prevents a woman from becoming a business executive, unseen obstacles frequently intervene. Some are direct — such as hiring managers who are unwilling to appoint a woman to a leadership role — while others are indirect, such as steering girls toward professions that are unlikely to lead to business leadership. In this situation, differential treatment originates within private organizations rather than the state.

Even when a government recognizes all people as equal under the law, private entities will naturally evaluate people according to whatever attributes best serve their own interests. Some degree of discrimination will occur; it should, however, be a matter of conscience for all involved. The best-qualified person should be hired regardless of gender or other irrelevant characteristics.

Veterans' Benefits and Social Consent

Another prominent example of differential treatment concerns veterans' benefits. Veterans receive certain rights that other citizens do not — among them, dedicated medical care. This is essentially part of the agreement society makes with those who go to war on its behalf: in exchange for their service, they receive additional privileges afterward. The difficulty, of course, is that a separate system can also vary in quality, and not always for the better. There are times when veterans appear to be treated worse rather than better, which hardly honors the original agreement.

Ultimately, it is for each society to determine what is appropriate. In the United States, treating veterans differently is something the broader society endorses, so it occurs. Where society does not endorse a given form of differential treatment, it tends not to persist. The critical question, however, is whether any given differential treatment has been agreed to by all members of society or merely by some. Slavery in the United States was agreed to by white men; apartheid in South Africa was similarly imposed by a ruling minority. When the entire population genuinely consents — as in the case of veterans' benefits — differential treatment may be acceptable. When only some members of society have consented, the differential treatment is unjust.