assignment on right to equality

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is " equal protection of the laws ", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more ...

Primary tabs

Amendment xiv.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age , and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

wex resources

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Civil Rights

Slaughterhouse Cases

Due Process

Substantive Due Process

Right of Privacy: Personal Autonomy

Territorial Jurisdiction

Equal Protection

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plyer v. Doe (1982)

Enforcement Power

Commerce Clause

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.7: Unalienable Rights

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 5830

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson, Preamble to the Declaration of Independence “Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself. ” Alexander Hamilton. Constitutional Debate, June 26, 1787 “ Government is instituted for those who live under it. It ought therefore to be so constituted as not to be dangerous to their liberties. The more permanency it has the worse if it be a bad.” Roger Sherman, Constitutional Debate, June 26, 1787 “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

Natural rights are often considered unalienable , meaning that are not to be taken away or denied. English philosopher John Locke believed that “Life, Liberty, and Property were the most important natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson defined natural rights as “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Both men believed that the purpose of government is to protect these rights through a social contract.

Liberty and equality-- these words have come to represent the basic values of democratic political systems including that of the United States.While rule by absolute monarchs and emperors has often brought peace and order, in many instances it has done so at the cost of personal freedoms. As we have seen, democratic values support the belief that an orderly society can exist in which freedom is preserved. However, order and freedom must be balanced.

It is the seemingly conflictual relationship between liberty and equality that has really formed the root of political conflict and debate since the origins of the first democratic governments. In this section, we will examine the basic concepts of equality and liberty and how modern democratic governments must balance the ideals of equality with the protection of basic liberties and freedoms. In other words, how can everybody be treated as equals, yet still have the freedom to own property and “pursue happiness” when those same basic freedoms may infringe upon the liberties of others?

Defining Liberty, Equality, and Justice

While there are many definitions of liberty , they all share a common feature that is important to our political understanding. That is, the ability to do as one pleases without interference (within the confines of common rules of society and law).

Again, while there are many definitions of equality , perhaps the best way to describe the common political understanding of this word is to describe it as the degree to which people are treated the same and without being “singled out” or restricted with regard to their beliefs, nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. Black’s Law, the most commonly used law dictionary in the United States, further defines equality as “ the condition of possessing the same rights, privileges, and immunities, and being liable to the same duties.” In other words, from a legal perspective, equality means people are all given the same basic rights and privileges, as well as being held to the same requirements and responsibilities within a society.

As with liberty and equality , there are many definitions of justice , but some common features between these definitions can be seen. This commonality should lead us to an understanding of the term. These features include a set of morals and standards, a system by which people are judged and punished fairly according to a standard set of commonly understood and practiced laws, a common understanding and practice of right or moral conduct, and a standardized application of punishments if the standards or rules of a community are violated.

Does justice always mean fairness? This is a much more complicated question. For instance, it may be fair to apply laws and punishments to all citizens in the same way without considering circumstances or mitigating factors, but is it just ? Do we give a four-year-old the same punishment for stealing a candy bar from a store as we would a young adult who should know better? Is someone who kills a person in the course of self-defense given the same punishment as someone who commits a “cold-blooded” murder? If truly equitable justice was the goal of government then everyone would, indeed, be treated in exactly the same way, but today we would see this not as justice but as being unfair because we often consider a number of factors in determining guilt and punishment.

Economic Arguments

Much of the conflict and debate over the relationship between liberty and equality revolves around the central economic questions of (1) what should be produced, (2) how will it be produced, and (3) for whom will it be produced? If, as John Locke proposed, people should have a natural right to the ownership of property, how can that right to property be balanced with equality? This becomes a question because not everyone will have the same amount of wealth. Just as we have seen several views of political liberty, we can examine economic wealth in the same way.

Distribution of Wealth

There are basically three approaches to the distribution of wealth.

1) Free Market Economies (Capitalism) is the belief that markets should be left alone by governments, and people should be free to make and buy what they wish at a price that is best left open to the forces of an open market. Thinkers such as Adam Smith, the Scottish philosopher and founder of modern economics theory, believed that such free market systems of exchange work to benefit both the producer and the consumer in the most efficient way by offering a variety of choices. Through the “invisible hand” of competition, the most efficient price is determined as a result of the competitive marketplace.

This system has been the root of American economic and political policy from our inception. The benefit is that people are free to make and buy what they want (given a large amount of liberty and freedom of choice), but there is an inherent understanding that, to quote the Rolling Stones, “You Can’t Always Get What You Want …” because not everyone will have the same level of wealth and income.

The counter-argument, of course, is that you are free to be as wealthy as you wish as long as you work hard and follow the rules. Others would argue that the rules do not work for everyone, particularly minorities. So, in the views of many, equality is sacrificed for the sake of economic liberty.

Here is a video (from the 1950s) on the benefit of Capitalism and distribution of wealth in the United States. It’s a little dated, but that’s part of the “charm.” How do you think these ideals apply to our society today?

Click below to watch a video on the distribution of wealth in the United States known as the “one percent problem” This video is a little lengthy, but see if you agree or disagree with the arguments presented in the video and compare them to the ideals expressed in the previous video.

(2) Socialism involves government influence and intervention in the basic economic questions: what to make, how to make it, and who will get it. Most socialist systems revolve around governmental intervention in or direct provision of goods and services. As an example, the government provided healthcare systems are often referred to as socialist by critics because they bypass the open market and require the government to provide a good or service to the public.

The primary argument against this system is that to provide those services, nations who have socialist economic policies often have very high taxes and fewer choices in the marketplace (not to mention the prices for many goods are much higher than they should be because of the lack of competition).

First, let's look at an academic explanation of pure socialism.

Next, let's take a more humorous look at the idea of "socialism."

(3) Communism involves direct governmental ownership and control of all means of production. These economies are often called command or planned economies because the government directly plans for or commands the types and quantities of goods that will be produced. They own or control the factories and workers that will produce the goods and services, and they set the price for those goods themselves (deciding who in society will be able to afford them).

These economies are most directly compared to the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba. While most former European communist countries (and China) have adopted a more capitalist approach to their economies, the effects of planned economies can still be seen. The criticism of these types of economic and political systems is that while there is equality (everyone is theoretically treated as an equal), the sacrifice is in freedom of choice and personal liberty. Most economic critics believe this system to be the least efficient system.

Below is a Khan Academy discussion of Communism.

The American Dream

Surely the conflict between liberty and equality is not just an economic one. Of course, there are more factors to consider in any society than simply the distribution and acquisition of wealth. However, it would seem that in the American system of government, much of the debate revolves around these economic considerations. Our nation has also been one that has considered the relationship between liberty and equality as one that also allows for equal opportunity. This approach would argue that everyone should have the same opportunity to acquire wealth and to improve their standard of living. Many would call this the “American Dream.”

The “American Dream” refers to a set of ideals in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity, success, and upward social mobility for the family and the children. The American Dream may be achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers. According to James Truslow Adams in his 1931 definition of the American Dream, "Life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or circumstances of birth.

The question for many of us today is “Can we still achieve the American Dream?” In a June 2014 CBS News Poll, this debate is openly discussed, with six out of ten of those people polled indicating that they believe the “American Dream” is no longer obtainable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-most-say-the-american-dream-is-out-of-reach ,

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-revive-your-american-dream/

or examine a 2018 poll here:

today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/10/04/american-dream-representation

Do you agree with the polls? Why or Why not?

Balancing Liberty and Equality

Shouldn't governments help preserve some degree of equality for their citizens? If they overemphasize equality, won't they restrict their citizens' liberty? For example, governments can bring about more equality by taxing rich citizens more than the poor, but if they carry their policies too far, won't they restrict the individual's freedom to strive for economic success?

The balance between liberty and equality is an important cornerstone of democratic government. If we view this as a balance between liberties and equal opportunities, then we see what the founding fathers intended (particularly when they mentioned the pursuit of happiness. If we try to view this as a balance between freedom and equal outcomes (where everyone is exactly the same), there is a tremendous tradeoff between the two. It seems one must be sacrificed in exchange for the other.

Understanding these theories and concepts, the Founders created the blueprints for the United States government in an effort to achieve these delicate balances — between liberty and order, and between liberty and equality. Their success is reflected in the continuing efforts to refine them. The formula has changed with time, but the framework provided by the Constitution and the values expressed by the Declaration of Independence remain the same.

Study/Discussion Questions

• What tradeoffs exist between liberty, equality, and justice?
• Why do you think political scientists and economists often view the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and justice as requiring tradeoffs? Can these democratic ideals all co-exist in their purest forms without tradeoffs between them? Why/why not?
• LIBERTY and EQUALITY:
• LIBERTY and JUSTICE:
• JUSTICE and FAIRNESS:
• What is meant by the term the "American Dream?" Give an example.
• Create a graphic organizer similar to the one below and complete it using your understanding and research on the three basic economic systems:

Writing Assignment

What is your American Dream? What is your plan to attain it? Do you consider the American Dream an attainable objective in your generation? Why/why not?

Write an essay on the above topic. Your essay should use appropriate English language construction, punctuation, grammar, and vocabulary. In addition, show evidence of planning, including an appropriate thesis, an introduction, supporting paragraphs and a summary/conclusion.

• Previous Article
• Next Article

I. CONTEXTS AND DEFINITIONS: DIFFERENCES AND CONVERGENCES

Ii. reclaiming distinctions: comparing individualized, structural, and sameness considerations, iii. underlying goals, concrete situations, equality vs. equity.

Martha Minow is the 300 th Anniversary University Professor, Harvard University. The author thanks Mira Singer, Joe Singer, Ben Eidelson, Blessing Jee, Gish Jen, Randy Kennedy, David Sanchez, Cass Sunstein, and Rick Weissbourd for their contributions.

• Cite Icon Cite
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Permissions
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Search Site

Martha Minow; EQUALITY VS. EQUITY. American Journal of Law and Equality 2021; 1 167–193. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/ajle_a_00019

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

“There’s a big difference between equality and equity,” said now Vice President Kamala Harris as she ran for the presidency of the United States, and many millions watched and shared her video, which depicted one mountain climber who starts in a deep hole and another who starts much higher up. 1 On the very day of his inauguration, with Vice President Harris at his side, President Joe Biden embraced the word “equity” in executive orders. 2 He charged Susan Rice, director of his Domestic Policy Council, “with ensuring that the new administration embeds issues of racial equity into everything it does.” 3 Federal agencies have been ordered to report on systemic barriers hampering access to benefits, services, and procurement opportunities.

Immediately, critics responded with objections. Some charged the new administration with seeking to install discriminatory practices, favoring some racial and ethnic groups over others and attempting to inflame rather than heal racial division. 4 Commentator Noah Rothman warned, “In practice, that looks less like ‘equity’ and more like ‘retribution.’” 5 Others attacked the Biden administration’s approach for promoting a “spoils” system, more governmentally imposed constraints on freedom, and abandonment of equality. 6 In contrast, key advisor Rice declared, “Advancing equity is a critical part of healing and of restoring unity in our nation.” 7 Robert Kuttner, a commentator on the left, however, warned that change will come only with massive restructuring of the power relations across labor, capital, and government, as well as class-based coalitions against racism. 8

The political debate reflects, but also clouds, work underway in educational and employment settings. Over the course of the last decade, “equity” initiatives have been organized in U.S. schools, in human resources departments at colleges, in corporations, in philanthropies, and in nonprofit organizations. Often, “equality” appears as the inadequate alternative. For example, a memorable cartoon circulating on the internet depicts two scenes of three children looking over a fence at a ball game. The first scene is labeled “Equality” and shows each child standing on a box with the tall child looking easily over the fence, a middle-size child able to just see over the fence, and a small child unable to see over the fence at all. The second scene, labeled “Equity,” depicts the tall child able to look over the fence while standing on the ground, the middle-size child able to see over the fence by standing on one box, and the small child, now standing on two stacked boxes, also able to see over the fence; all three are essentially getting the same view. 9 The images provide vivid contrasts. They are invoked in discussions urging equity rather than equality. Individualized accommodations for students with disabilities represent one version of equity, already mandated and implemented by law under frameworks labeled in terms of antidiscrimination, inclusion, or equality. Whatever it is called, treating everyone the same, regardless of background factors, historical inequities, and personal situation, inspired Anatole France’s observation, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” 10 Tailored treatment, rather than identical treatment, could proceed based on assessments of an individual’s needs and situation or instead based on diagnosis of systemic conditions of disadvantage and exclusion.

But the contrast between the terms “equality” and “equity” does not illuminate real differences in potential visions of society. The terms “equality” and “equity” have become weapons in polarized political arguments rather than analytic tools. The political volley over words neglects and obscures decades of litigation, policy, and academic work in both American law and comparative law. The U.S. Constitution prohibits government denial of “equal protection” of the laws; state and federal statutes guard against discrimination on the basis of individual characteristics (e.g., race, gender, disability, age, sexual orientation or identity). The relevant state or federal authority does not use the term “equity.” In ongoing litigation challenges to any attention to race used by the admission processes of selective colleges and universities, the defense must proceed by reference to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law as well as statutory protections against discrimination or exclusion on the basis of race. 11 Dumping on “equality” is a poor strategy for any who support inclusion, affirmative action, and overcoming historic and ongoing barriers based on individuals’ group membership or situation. Attacking “equality” jeopardizes public support and surrenders intellectual and legal resources—including laws and judicial decisions—otherwise available for enforceable changes. Ceding the term “equality” to those who oppose any redress of historic and systemic disadvantages is especially shortsighted in a nation where courts have ruled that “classification” of individuals on the basis of certain personal characteristics (including race, gender, and religion) requires the most skeptical scrutiny. Further, tensions among current uses of “equity” hamper articulation of and steps toward potential initiatives at the levels of interpersonal, institutional, economic, and political action.

This article seeks to clarify the meanings behind contemporary uses of the terms “equality” and “equity.” It also supports the conception, associated at times with equality and at times with equity, of laws and policies that are responsive to individual and structural differences in people’s circumstances. Lawyers, students, and policy makers work every day with the constitutional language of “equal protection of the laws,” as well as with statutes and regulations forbidding discrimination on the basis of protected traits, such as race and gender. Although these sources do not speak of “equity,” dismissing them would be a big mistake. Not only are these sources the law of the land: the terms and underlying conceptions of “equal protection” and “antidiscrimination” can be crucial tools for redeeming the promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Reconstruction Amendments—the promise of a nation where each person is secure and enjoys the same freedoms and opportunities as others, a nation that rejects status spelled by birth, race, or other happenstance. This is a promise worth fortifying, elaborating, and improving, not casting out or conceding away to those who resist continuing struggles in this historic spirit.

Testing any classification of individuals by reference to a group trait—and questioning any treatment that differs from treatment of others—is simply one understanding of equality and a narrow one at that. As Professor Owen Fiss showed a half century ago, the use of the term “equality” can instead signal comparisons of groups and direct challenges to entrenched patterns of hierarchy and subordination on the basis of group traits. 12 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg each pursued this vision of equality and its resulting expansive methods while also embracing the recognition of the dignity of each individual. 13

Current emphasis on “equity” implies a shift from the earlier social justice movements epitomized by King, Roosevelt, and Ginsburg. Mounting evidence over decades shows that eliminating explicit, lawful discrimination does not undo patterns of disadvantage. Moreover, an implicit narrative of a zero-sum game helps to perpetuate defenses of current arrangements. 14 The treatment of racial and ethnic identities spells ongoing injustices even for people who do not descend from enslaved individuals in the United States. These include more recent immigrants identified as Black, Latinx communities, and Asians. Subjugation based on disability, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, and other markers of difference each has its own history and perpetuated suffering that bears on the search for what is signaled by the call for equity. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, disparities in the wealth and income of Americans grew to rival those of the Great Depression. 15 “The gaps in income between upper-income and middle- and lower-income households are rising, and the share held by middle-income households is falling,” reported the Pew Research Center in January of 2020. 16 Financial inequalities and polarization began to rival the Gilded Age when excessive wealth juxtaposed with massive poverty so divided the nation. 17 Then came the COVID-19 virus, jeopardizing health and human lives and also exposing and exacerbating economic inequalities and racial differences in resources, vulnerabilities, and healthcare. 18 The egregious violence and racial disparities in policing, prosecutions, and incarceration long experienced by African Americans became undeniable across the nation with the vicious police murder of George Floyd. 19

In the field of education, dismantling laws that used race for student public school assignments did not end prior and ongoing disparities over resources and expectations. After courts rejected legally enforced racial segregation, conscious and unconscious racial biases persisted or grew worse. The result has been many nonwhite students stuck in schools marked by concentrated poverty, fewer resources, and lower test scores than schools that are predominantly composed of white students. 20 The use of “equity,” especially in the context of schooling, reflects the disappointments of “equality” and “equal protection” as interpreted and implemented.

The turn to “equity” marks a search for different results. The hope may be that “equity” opens possibilities of probing deeper into ongoing issues unresolved by easy claims of “equal opportunity” or “equal protection.” Yet defining that vision in ways that can be put into operation requires more than simply a shift in words and more than a gesture to unclear alternatives.

The definitions commonly associated with the words show interchangeability rather than sharp contrast. Indeed, they are commonly used to define one another. The Oxford English Dictionary gives “fairness, impartiality, equity” as a definition of “equality” and defines “equity” as “the quality of being equal or fair.” 21 Merriam-Webster Dictionary starts its many definitions for “equity” with “free from bias or favoritism” or “justice according to natural rights or law.” 22

In some current usages, “equity” implies something more focused on results and on accommodation of individual differences. It is often used to call for systemic changes. Yet in some debates over public school finance, “equity” means allocating the same dollar amounts across different school districts, regardless of tax base or the tax rate used to generate revenues—as juxtaposed to “adequacy,” meaning ensuring an educational system of a certain definable level of quality. 23 “Equity” in school finance has itself come to carry multiple contrasting meanings, including (1) meeting the needs of low-income students as well as wealthy ones (“vertical equity”); (2) equal efforts by individual districts—taxing themselves at the same rate, even if the underlying taxable property is of different value; or (3) “equitable access” to educational opportunities reasonably designed to allow expected educational achievements. 24 An underlying point of difference is the choice of what to compare, such as expenditures per student, costs of meeting the needs of diverse students, or efforts by local communities to tax themselves to meet student needs.

Some organizations group together the terms “antidiscrimination,” “equality,” and “equity” and, hence, seem not to view “equity” and “equality” as at odds. 25 Most Americans embrace equality as a norm, even if they disagree over its meaning. Disagreements often erupt over treatments of race, gender, and economic status. The Anne E. Casey Foundation, active on these issues, notes that “[o]ften, race-focused conversations derail because people are using the same terms in different ways.” 26

A new word alone cannot herald social transformation, especially if the word itself lacks well-defined meaning. “Equity” actually has specific meanings: it refers to the common stock of a corporation, or ownership rights in property, or a claim recognized by law. Lawyers and historians of England know equity as a form of litigation and remedy originally rooted in the powers of the British monarch to provide legal recourse where the local common law itself ran out; here, “equity” refers to what emerged, and in some ways persists, as a distinctive system of individualized justice outside strict application of usual rules and advancing conscience and responsiveness to need. 27 Originally established as a separate court—the King’s Court of Chancery—equity norms and principles merged with standard state and federal courts within the United States; equity provides the authority for judicially ordered flexible corrections to otherwise rigid rules and allows shaping remedies tailored to the particular instance. “Equity” in law also draws on concepts from ancient Greek and Roman law and from Christian ideas. 28 From these historical sources, “equity” involves adapting existing law to changing conditions or to unique circumstances and, often, departure from general, settled rules. 29 The results can be unpredictable, subject to the views or whims of particular decision-makers.

Outside of legal contexts, the meaning of “equity” can be protean. Conservative commentator Shelby Steele explains the attraction for political progressives of a new, emptier term to organize around, and said “equity was perfect because it meant absolutely nothing.” 30 Over the span of several years, “equity” in school finance alone has taken on many contrasting and inconsistent meanings. 31 More than 150 years ago, the legally trained political philosopher Jeremy Bentham warned, “Taken by itself, or anywhere else than in the company of the word court, equity is abracadabra.” 32 Ambiguous and malleable, equality and equity might each come into sharper focus with attention to their antonyms: in equality and in equity signal injustice and unfairness and exclusion or denials of opportunities, protections, rights, or remedies.

Education reformers are at the forefront of embracing the term “equity” rather than “equality.” One nonprofit education advocacy group explains, “Equality suggests providing every student with the same experience. Equity means working to overcome the historical legacy of discrimination, marginalization, and underinvestment that disadvantages specific groups of people, especially defined by race. Equity requires providing support tailored to the specific needs of students.” 33 Rejecting identical resources and identical instruction as insufficient to meet the different needs of different students, education advocates stress that “equity” calls for something different than the same treatment for all that they associate with “equality.” 34

Individualized treatment, responsive to particular needs, contrasts with across-the-board treatment. 35 A vivid version of the idea says, “Equality is giving everyone a shoe, equity is giving everyone a shoe that fits.” 36 This approach of individualized treatment is the specific remedy afforded to public school students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 37 Students who are identified as having a disability can obtain an Individual Education Plan, which is designed with both content and methods of instruction depending on the context of the particular situation and needs of the specific student. Other interpretations of equity also focus on individual needs. 38 Relatedly, but with a different moral tenor, DeRay Mckesson (an organizer of Black Lives Matter) stresses, “The difference between equity and equality is that equality is everyone get the same thing and equity is everyone get the things they deserve.” 39

Besides highlighting the importance of tailoring to individual needs, equity can emphasize self-determination or shifts in power to and participation by people who have been marginalized. Verna Myers, a leader in the diversity, equity, and inclusion field, has said: “Diversity is being invited to the dance. Inclusion is being asked to Dance.” 40 University of Houston administrator Cynthia Olmedo adds, “Equity is allowing you to choose the Music.” 41 In this vein, a professional development initiative of Tuskegee University and its Cooperative Extension program on diversity, equity, and inclusion emphasizes that equity means promoting justice with an understanding of the root causes of outcome disparities, including the social distribution of resources. 42

Equity is fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement for all people, while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. In order to improve equity, we must increase justice and fairness within the procedures and processes of institutions or systems, as well as their distribution of resources. Tackling equity issues requires an understanding of the root causes of outcome disparities within our society. 45

Equality and equity both can call for understanding root causes of inequity and inequality, including historic patterns of privilege and disadvantage reflected in public policies and private views. Overcoming these patterns requires changes in the allocation of resources and reformations of existing avenues to success and well-being. Differences in pay for work performed by women rather than men, for example, reflect occupational segregation and social and legal attitudes; hence “pay equity” means considering whether occupations dominated by women, such as nursing home aide, are really any less demanding and worthwhile than occupations that have been dominated by men, such as corrections officer. 46 Deep changes in organizations and practices hold the possibility of starting fresh without the impact of longstanding exclusions and degradations. Another version of the cartoon of children peering behind a fence conveys the idea: some suggest replacing the wooden opaque fence with a more transparent chain-link fence, while a bolder idea proposes eliminating the fence altogether. 47 School counselor and blogger Lisa Koenecke asks, “What if we removed the fence all together? Let’s consider taking away barriers in order to promote equity.” 48 It is a powerful image. In practice, what does it mean: no fee for anyone to see a ballgame? Then how does the game become sustainable? What would that mean for college admissions and employment decisions?

Social justice facilitator Meg Bolger takes up these questions and focuses on advantages and barriers in employment related to gender and racial biases around candidates’ names. In response, she explains: “Equitable processes seek to identify these imbalances and then create processes where the disparate outcomes wouldn’t exist.” 49 Rather than a particularized conception of justice focused on what each person deserves, her approach calls for changing systems to produce something approximating equality of outcomes for groups defined along certain dimensions—chiefly race. Bolger and other facilitators help companies, schools, and nonprofits adopt changes in processes and attitudes along these lines. Consultants and experts in the “diversity, equity, and inclusion” movement contribute to the public discussions comparing equity and equality and aiming for equality of representation or results for people from marginalized communities. In materials produced by “DEI” programs, “equality” is treated as “sameness,” while equity is “fairness.” One public health expert summarized that: equity may involve representation of members of minority groups in proportion to their share of the population; it may be subjective; it may require treating people differently; and it can “work” even if people come from different “starting points.”

For some, equality does not follow representation based on proportions of the population; it is objective or measurable; it calls for treating people the same; and it does not “work” if people begin at different “starting points.” 50 Some argue that “equity approaches are needed to achieve equality.” 51 Overcoming past and present disadvantages can require equity in order to achieve equality. 52 Scholars including Owen Fiss, Reva Siegel, and Cass Sunstein have framed equality itself as the tool to undo and overcome subordination and caste. 53 Thus, for those seeking commitments to overcoming past and present disadvantage, “equity” may seem the right word, and yet many conceive of “equality” in precisely these terms. If pressed to mean truly providing equal chances for people, “equality” demands attention and responses to different starting points, systemic disadvantages, and conditions affecting the success of individuals and groups. 54

The goal of equality is more than an evolutionary intolerance to adverse discrimination. It is to ensure, too, that the vestiges of these arbitrarily restrictive assumptions do not continue to play a role in our society. … It is not a question of whether this discrimination is motivated by an intentional desire to obstruct someone’s potential, or whether it is the accidental by-product of innocently motivated practices or systems. If the barrier is affecting certain groups in a disproportionately negative way, it is a signal that the practices that lead to this adverse impact may be discriminatory. 55

If “equality” carries this meaning, why the turn to “equity”? Perhaps the preference for the term “equity” is simply due to the attractions of something new, like a new branding campaign. That means naming a contrast between the approaches signaled by “equity” and “equality” and usually means narrowing “equality” to a cookie-cutter approach of treating every person identically. An analysis sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA) emphasizes that equality underlies policies of uniform distribution while equity informs affirmative action and other policies that Americans are likely to think of as unfair. 56 This analysis concludes that, to pursue access for all, libraries need to pursue both equality and equity, which will ensure not only that resources are available to all but that there will also be assistance to overcome barriers some face because they lack, for example, internet access or English language proficiency. 57 With an apparent need to explicitly state commitments to universal opportunity but also to affirmative investments in reaching those who face disadvantages, the ALA reflects the assumption that equality and equity involve different strategies and commitments.

Perhaps “equity” rather than “equality” signals a major increase in the scale of social changes imagined and needed, even though some approach massive change through notions of equality. Philosopher Brian Barry has notably argued that true equal opportunity requires changes in structures, investment, and reallocation of resources—both income and wealth—through taxes and transfers to bring about and sustain similar resources for all. 58 Further, in Barry’s view, governments should take steps to assure the provision of housing, as well as sufficient quality of education and health services, so individuals can grasp other opportunities in society. 59

These arguments are controversial. 60 They can, nonetheless, be made in terms of equality as well as in terms of equity. Treating people the same when there are differences in their circumstances is not equality; for Barry, equality demands changing the circumstances to increase the likelihood of more equal outcomes. Equality in this view requires avenues for “leveling the playing field” and also calls for persistent checking on what actually works. 61 Perhaps underscoring the continuing resonance of “equality,” however, an education data communication expert argues that equity and equality are “not equal”—and in so doing, she resorts to equality to make the argument. 62

The contrast between equal policies and policies that lead to equality is well known. 63 People have different needs and are situated differently in society and in history. Scholars and policy makers have long attended to the difference between treating people equally and treating them in ways that serve them equally. Another related contrast is “equality of opportunity” versus “equality of results.” John Rawls influentially invited society to agree to “regard the distribution of natural talents as a common asset and to share in the distribution of the benefit whatever it turns out to be.” 64 His work generated debate over incentives, desert, and distribution, and recent critics emphasize how the “liberal egalitarianism” crystallized in Rawls’s work cabined options and failed to anticipate developments such as mass incarceration and post-industrial capitalism. 65 The invocation of equity instead of equality suggests this distinction but also points to further contrasts. 66 This section maps contrasting concepts signaled by current uses of “equality” and “equity,” while it also develops strengths and weaknesses of the concepts for purposes of political, legal, and policy efforts.

Although, as detailed earlier, there exist numerous possible meanings, this chart treats “equality” to mean paying no attention to differences among people and “equity” as directing attention to uneven playing fields and conscious remedial efforts. This effort to sort meanings exposes the choices about strategies that are signaled by at least some uses of “equity”: focus on each individual’s unique needs or design group-based reforms. Whether called “equality” or something else, approaches that call for uniformity or identical treatment, regardless of individual circumstances, can be disappointing or even perverse. This is the basic insight at least as old as Aristotle’s notion of justice as treating likes alike—and correlatively, treating un-likes unalike. A building fails to be open to all if it can be entered only through a stairway and some potential users rely on wheelchairs. 67 Teaching all students in English disadvantages those who do not speak or read it. 68 Taxing everyone the same amount neglects the different meanings of the marginal dollar for people in different income brackets.

Even “sameness” as a factor in equal treatment is problematic. “The same as what?” is the inevitable question. If men are the point of reference, women can seem “different” and not entitled to similar treatment; if able-bodied people are the assumed reference point, then ensuring access and accommodation for persons with disabilities is not required by “same” treatment. Yet these familiar problems with “sameness” reflect the simple failure to expose as unjustified the point of reference. Such “default” points of reference lack rationales and entrench prior privileges and advantages. They also obscure the way that the very traits deemed as “same” or “different” may rest on faulty stereotypes.

One revered touchstone for “sameness” expected by equal treatment is the Golden Rule. Across cultures and times, the directive to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” answers “the same as yourself” when it comes to how another person should be treated. This same guidepost could instruct decision-makers and direct resistance to any temptations to diminish another person. Putting to the side the difficulty of imagination when decision-makers creating law and rules do not have a specific person before them, the Golden Rule itself receives criticisms for failing to acknowledge that the others may not have wants or desires identical to yours. As George Bernard Shaw put it, “Yet do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.” 69 This objection might be overcome if the decision-maker works to learn the neighbor’s desires and preferences and can craft the treatment accordingly. To treat others as they want to be treated might be understood as applying the golden rule to the golden rule, correcting the risk of missing the wants and needs of others. 70

Another problem with the “sameness” element of “the same treatment” comes with the risk of “leveling down” to worse treatment in order to achieve sameness. When a company or government provides maternal leave to mothers, a father’s objection of inequality could be resolved by ending maternal leave rather than by expanding to parental leave. “Leveling down” rather than “leveling up” exposes what Peter Westen dubbed the “empty idea of equality”; equality, at least in some interpretations, lacks any substantive commitments and needs external values to supply content. 71 Commitments to recognition, dignity, or comparable outcomes complement an abstract notion of treating likes alike. The U.S. Equal Pay Act, for example, calls for equal pay for equal work, but its users encounter job names and practices that can obscure what makes work similar enough to be considered equal. Courts and agencies have concluded that the work need not be identical but instead substantially the same in skill level, effort, and responsibility at the same establishment. 72 “Equal pay” is the phrase for the legal norm, but its application requires looking beyond specific categories to determine who should be treated comparably. Even more vigorously attached to a substantive picture of desirable outcomes, Canadian jurisprudence specifies within its equality protections that services and benefits are required to enable equal outcomes despite unequal prior conditions faced by different individuals and groups. 73

Yet what should be compared—what elements of people’s backgrounds, positions, needs, and desired outcomes—remains a problem. Nobel Prize–winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen memorably asked, “equality of what?” 74 Even using a utilitarian notion of marginal utility runs into the problem that different individuals have different utility functions, different intensity of needs, and different situations. 75 Addressing what it would take for different people to have the same capabilities—abilities to exercise freedoms and achieve desires—would be one avenue for surmounting these differences, but even this approach, notes Sen, remains embedded in particular cultures which themselves vary. 76

This line of reasoning suggests that the uniqueness of each person is the necessary focus for any consideration of equal or unequal treatment. That view increasingly matches U.S. constitutional law that has elevated protections against classification on the basis of race or gender over remedying historic and ongoing burdens and barriers based on those characteristics. 77 There is powerful appeal in resisting the use of classifications that have been used to subordinate some and elevate others—and to resist reducing an individual to that particular trait. A related idea is “formal equality,” which insists on general rules and practices without reference to group or individual characteristics.

Human language and perception inevitably simplify and reduce the massive variety of experiences. Human languages use words to stand in for complex realities and provide descriptions of perceptions that select some qualities over others. 78 So does law. Even in describing the uniqueness of an individual, words connect that individual’s traits—height, interests, personality—to features of other people. The assertion of a legal claim of unequal treatment invariably requires expressing a group classification, drawing an individual into a subset of people defined by a shared trait—by race, ethnicity, language used at home, gender, age, appearance, or other personal characteristic. The reduction of an individual to some characteristics rather than others reflects the inevitably limited nature of human words.

When framed as a focus on the merit of a unique individual, allocation of rewards, opportunities, or markers of success obscure the ongoing impact of group membership. Whether stressing the qualities associated with a group of people—defined by scores above a threshold on a particular kind of test or by membership in a group such as descendants of persons enslaved in the United States—notions of merit depend on rankings and categorizations. Michael Sandel’s challenge to this conception of merit exposes the danger of attributing success to the qualities embodied in an individual rather than to luck. 79 This attribution implies credit and blame in ways that neglect chance and history and contribute to the disparagement and degradation of people explicitly or implicitly identified through reference to types of prior experiences.

The call for “same treatment” could attend to as many characteristics about an individual as possible by locating an individual in smaller and smaller subsets, with each subset defined as those sharing to include only those with specific multiple characteristics. “Same treatment” then would be required for all in a shared subset. But how are individualized needs and situations to be assessed, and by whom? How are issues of bias or variations in the eye of the beholder to be avoided? Variations in the application of federal criminal sentences by judges produced charges of bias and unfairness, which in turn prompted standardized guidelines, which were then challenged as violating an individual’s right to the individualized decision-making of a jury. 80 Analysis of past data can inform algorithmic pretrial tools that assess the risk that an individual may fail to show up at their trial—and reduce the variations in bail decisions made by individual judges—but such tools in turn reflect biases of past decision-makers. 81 Data-driven risk tools reflect policies about where police are stationed and the biases of the police themselves. 82

For a time, individualized exemptions and accommodations characterized the federal constitutional approach to the religious exercise claims of individuals objecting to burdens from governmental policies, until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise, given the cost of such accommodations and the jeopardy to effective, uniform rules. In Employment Division v. Smith , the Supreme Court decided that neutral rules of general applicability that happen to burden the religious practices or beliefs of individuals do not demand governmental accommodation, which could undermine the possibility of any general rule. 83 Writing for the Court’s majority, Justice Scalia reasoned that the requirement of individualized accommodation would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind, including compulsory military service; the payment of taxes; health and safety regulation, such as manslaughter law, child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; social welfare legislation, such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, and environmental protection laws; and laws providing for equality of opportunity for people of all races. 84

Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, seeking to restore the individualized accommodation approach, but the Court rejected the law as exceeding Congress’s power, although the approach survives under some state statutes and in religious organizations’ challenges to land use actions and religious exercise claims by incarcerated persons. 85 Recent calls to overturn the Smith case put the entire question back in play. 86

Individualized accommodations can be expensive to design and to implement. In some contexts, such accommodations and resulting costs may defeat the overall policy goal. For example, devising individualized assessments of the needs of individuals following natural disasters may require so much time and expense that aid would not be available to people in those emergency circumstances. In such situations, uniform checks may be better than devising tailored support. Similar issues could arise with pandemic stimulus checks from the government, if the individualization is based on adjusted gross income, because that measure excludes vast variations in individuals’ wealth and family circumstances. But getting the checks out quickly may be more valuable and meaningful to those with urgent needs than fitting the amounts to the actual needs. The expressive impact of universal benefits, as opposed to individualized ones, is another factor, however, to consider. 87 An across-the-board retirement age avoids potentially more hurtful judgments about a specific person. 88

Besides costs, individualized tailoring means disuniformity—in violation of at least some notions of fairness. Compare, though, issues of costs or disuniformity with the alternative of one-size-fits-all treatments that can systemically disadvantage or burden members of minority or marginalized groups. Case-by-case accommodations—such as those that have been undertaken for years in the contexts of issues concerning members of religious or racial minorities or persons with disabilities—make all the difference for the individuals involved. But do such individualized accommodations alter systemic biases in norms and practices? Indirectly and over time, there may be change, but individualized accommodations are neither targeted nor well designed to tackle structural changes in rules, practices, and attitudes that exclude or burden some people based on their needs, identities, or backgrounds. “Systemic racism” builds different treatments of people based on their perceived race into the patterns of practices and rules used in laws, institutions, and people’s unconscious and conscious acts. Individualized responses may well leave these patterns in place. Overcoming blind spots may address only exceptional issues or problems for individuals rather than structural failures calling for change.

I am not saying that equality isn’t our ultimate goal. I am simply saying that to start treating me, as a Black person, “the same as everyone else” at this point in history will not go far enough in terms of achieving true equality. As far as racial justice is concerned, equality should be the interpersonal standard. That is, on an individual basis, we should all treat each other the same regardless of race. However, on a systemic level (including as an individual acting in an official capacity within systems, justice or otherwise), the standard must be equity. 89

If systemic or structural change becomes the priority meaning for “equity,” at least one more fork in the road appears. Should reform not only overcome disadvantages but also remove advantages—not only ensure basic minimal access for all, but also halt disparities in resources or privileges of those at the top? Another version of the cartoon of children trying to see a ball game over a fence removes the box used by the tallest child, gives one box for the middle-sized child, and multiple boxes for the smallest child, who then towers over the others and gets the best view. 90 Translated to actual policy, one could argue for reallocating the strongest teachers from classes for the most advantaged students to classes for the most disadvantaged students, in contrast to union contracts and school practices that reward the best teachers with assignment to advanced or “gifted” students. This, of course, would potentially face intense opposition from teachers and from parents of advantaged students. And it would be difficult to know where to stop with such an effort. Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopic short story “Harrison Bergeron” imagines a world in which amendments to the U.S. Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and disallows anyone from being smarter, better looking, or more physically able than anyone else. Enforcement of the “equality laws” forces citizens to equip themselves with disabling devices, including an earpiece radio that blares loud sounds to disrupt the thoughts of intelligent people and heavy weights that burden the strong or athletic. 91 And, to continue the ballgame metaphor, removing and adding boxes in front of the fence does nothing to alter or remove the fence itself. 92

Redressing the disadvantages of some may indeed involve redistributing resources in ways that expose trade-offs that affect others. The Canadian Supreme Court rejected challenges, posed on equality grounds, to granting First Nations (indigenous) groups the power to designate who can fish for a twenty-four-hour period in a particular river while excluding others from doing so. 93 Over one dissenting vote, the Court reasoned that the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not prevent an ameliorative program aimed at combating disadvantage, even if the effect is to disadvantage others. 94 The promotion of equality entails the promotion of a society in which all are secure in the knowledge that they are recognized by law as human beings equally deserving of concern, respect, and consideration. 95 Unanswered by reference to either “equality” or “equity” is precisely when and how much promotion of respect for each individual may warrant burdens, costs, or sacrifices. 96

Some years ago, for example, there was a big outcry that various mental tests used for college admissions or for employment were biased and “unfair” to many individuals or groups. Fortunately, there was one voice of sanity—David Riesman, I believe—who said: “The tests are not unfair. LIFE is unfair and the tests measure the results.” 97

What historical moments are right to use for identifying and remedying life’s unfairness? And would such remedies require perpetual adjustment and revision? If policies seeking to redress life’s unfairnesses redistribute resources in 2025, should the results be revisited and revised in 2030? Unfortunately, such questions pose difficult normative and practical issues. For example, computer scientists calling for a study of different classroom interventions assume the relevant frame for the “Veil of Ignorance” (the thought experiment devised by philosopher John Rawls for designing a just world, under which those imagining the ideal world would not know their social position, identity, or status) is right now and the relevant actor is the teacher or department. 98 But John Rawls and his followers treat the “Veil of Ignorance” as a thought experiment to draw people out of current times, places, and biases in order to build society from the ground up. The hope behind the device is to incline toward just designs, as I may be more scrupulous in cutting equal pieces of cake if we do not know which piece will go to you and which to me. The “Veil of Ignorance” has an entirely different meaning if it is meant to disallow noting and acting on the differences between people in setting up computer science classrooms in 2021 instead of as a thought experiment used prior to devising ground rules for society in general. Strikingly, when used as Rawls used it, the “Veil of Ignorance” thought experiment would lead people to agree to assure that all individuals have the same rights and opportunities while also, at every junction, committing to allocating social and economic resources to benefit those with the least advantages. 99

Thus, “equality” focused on “same treatment” can be critiqued as lacking any substantive content, failing to specify or even understand what should be the same across people, and focusing on group classifications rather than on social hierarchies. “Equity” can be criticized for shifting unreviewable power to decision-makers to decide which individual differences deserve what kinds of treatment, for raising costs and difficulty in allocative decisions, for forcing a choice between ever more individualized judgments versus policies intended to make structural changes based on group characteristics, and for inspiring measures to redistribute resources and rewards for some individuals “at the top” rather than ensuring basic minimum benefits for all. Yet, as already suggested, the terms “equality” and “equity” can each give rise to versions of these critiques. These two terms may be entering the status of “essentially contested concepts.” 100 Walter Bryce Gallie offered this phrase to refer to concepts that secure widespread endorsement but also expansive disagreement over their proper uses, disagreements that “cannot be settled by appeal to empirical evidence, linguistic usage, or the canons of logic alone.” 101 Indeed, the terms are often used for overlapping or interchangeable meanings. Clarity about goals and a shift from abstractions to concrete problems might help.

Behind both “equality” and “equity” are underlying goals of fairness, justice, and respect for individual dignity. Historic injustices and ongoing patterns of poorly distributed economic and political power, along with conscious and unconscious bias toward group characteristics, permeate laws, policies, and practices in ways that impede or stymie those goals. “Equity” in current parlance offers ways to achieve equality by either meeting individual needs or producing alterations of entrenched patterns impairing equality.

Canadian jurisprudence offers a promising approach that joins both through the idea of “equality of condition, not just equality of opportunity.” 102 Also dubbed “substantive equality,” this notion proceeds with the recognition that people start from different positions, so achieving equality requires attention to people’s actual positions and staring points. Hence, “[s]ubstantive equality seeks to address the inequalities that stem from an individual’s particular circumstances, to help put them at the same position and give them the same opportunities as others.” 103 This approach rejects a ban on group classifications and assistance programs intended to remedy exclusions or to relieve hardship or economic disadvantage. 104

The central commitment of equality is to treat likes alike; its corollary finds inequality in treating those differently situated as if they are situated the same way. Something has gone seriously wrong if commitment to “equality” prevents efforts to level the playing field, to overcome barriers to opportunity, or to enable those who are differently situated to grasp the same opportunities. It is that “something gone wrong”—such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s elevation of anti-classification over any other dimensions of equal protection and antidiscrimination—that probably explains the growing interest in “equity.” Something has indeed gone wrong if the starting point for testing equal opportunity or color blindness requires ignoring how past opportunities and race consciousness have already produced systemic barriers to opportunity and neutrality. 105 Something has gone terribly wrong when the terms of discussion prevent us from seeing how all are harmed by injustice, racism, and unfairness—and all would benefit from redressing these wrongs. 106

Maintaining discussion at an abstract level, though, will not advance an understanding of the choices and priorities lying ahead for schools, employers, and other actors in positions to address these issues. Here are a few examples of concrete problems. They are offered to identify issues that cannot be resolved by reference to the debates over equality vs. equity and that need careful thought and engagement.

In educational settings, recognizing differences in the backgrounds, abilities, and learning styles of individuals corresponds with the goals of schools, whether couched as “equal opportunity” or “equality.” Still, concrete policy issues expose genuine choices and conflicts. Take school finance. Per-pupil expenditures in any given district can be calculated as averages, but legal rights for students with disabilities and legal entitlements for schools with high proportions of low-income students bring more resources for those students than for others. “Equity” might be a name for these efforts to bring more resources to students with greater needs. Yet, the current structures of school finance dictate that most of the resources are generated by local property taxes, so differences in the amounts raised and spent vary by community—even neighboring ones—and efforts to challenge resulting differences in expenditures per child have had at best mixed results. In addition, the taxes on local communities can be compared in terms of amounts generated, reflecting property values, or tax rates. Which should be the right point of comparison to achieve the goal, whether denoted equality or equity? What is to be compared for the purposes of equality—monetary investments, community tax effort, or student achievement measures?

In the United States criminal justice system, both within and across jurisdictions, the disparate outcomes based on the race of the defendant are notorious. But what about comparisons in terms of the race of the victim? 107 Courts increasingly use algorithmic tools to predict likely flight risks before trial, but critics show how the underlying data informing the algorithmic scores replicate or exacerbate racial disparities—for example, in the use of prior arrest records, which track decisions about where police are sent—and other factors correlated with race. 108 Even deeper issues of equity and inequality involve income and wealth disparities in the ability of individuals to pay bail and hence avoid pretrial detention. When California recently faced a Hobson’s choice—to replace the cash bail system with algorithmic risk tools—the defects in both options stood in the way of equity, equality, and fairness. Perhaps greater fairness would emerge only by rejecting both algorithmic risk tools about defendants and the system of cash bail. 109 Fairness, justice, and respect for individual dignity call for something better, whether called “equal protection of the law” or “equity.” Other alternatives to pretrial detention include pretrial services—ensuring access to jobs, housing, and counseling 110 —or turning the tables and applying algorithmic risk scores to police officers.

One timely issue involves the allocation of scarce COVID-19 vaccine shots. In debating the priorities for administering vaccines, philosopher Peter Singer noted that the criterion of greater risk would suggest, based on evidence of risk, giving priority to people who are African American and Latinx ahead of those of the same age who are white or Asian. But, he notes that one proposal draws on the fact that members of racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented among those who are older than 65 and recommends lower priority to that entire age group and higher to younger “essential workers.” Surely contrary to the intention of the idea, the effect of this proposal “would be that more people of racial and ethnic minorities would die, because the higher fatality rate in older people would outweigh their lower share of representation in that age group.” Singer explained, and then assessed: “That’s absurd. Equity for disadvantaged minorities can’t tell us to distribute vaccines in a manner that will mean more deaths in those communities themselves.” 111 The problem can generate other specific solutions not illuminated by the discussion of equity versus equality. For example, public safety expert Juliette Kayyem argues for prioritizing vaccines for those who help others—including teachers. 112 The coronavirus relief bill enacted in March 2021 pursues a similar conception. It provides resources to ensure students are connected to the internet after the pandemic showed that so many households were unable to access virtual classrooms from home. 113 Notably, prior allocations of federal funds favored predominantly white school districts when compared with nonwhite districts, even when they served roughly the same numbers of students. 114

The promise of equal protection of the laws was broken from the start of the United States by the Constitution’s protections for the institution of slavery. The Civil War and resulting amendments announced a new due process and equal protection of the laws, and they empowered federal enforcement. At times, the nation has seen delivery on the promise of equal protection. 115 But the Supreme Court drastically narrowed the Amendments’ scope, and states and private white resistance actively thwarted the Amendments through “Jim Crow” laws mandating racial segregation, lax or nonexistent law enforcement, extra-legal violence reinforcing “white supremacy,” and retrenchment of judicial action. Despite decades of social and legal movements to overcome legally enforced racial subjugation, the nation remains enmeshed in patterns of racial disadvantage, exclusion, and expropriation, with the mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of African Americans and serious political challenges to birthright citizenship, voting rights, due process, and equal protection of the law. This history is fully documented by Eric Foner, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and others. 116 Its operations in the psyches and interactions of individuals are also laid bare by the works of scholars, novelists, filmmakers, and memoirists. 117 Different but similarly appalling stories of the failure of the equal protection of the law affect the daily lives of people identified as Asian American, Latinx, sexual or gender minorities, and persons with disabilities.

Many current judicial interpretations and some current political arguments hollow out the concept of equality and sadly lead its natural advocates to disparage it. But what should be discredited are the destructive interpretations, stripping “equal protection” and civil rights from their core meanings. “Equity” may seem to offer a way out, but words alone cannot redeem what political forces undermine. Above all, whatever words are used, the concepts and goals should be clear and capable of motivating and guiding the coalitions of people whose beliefs and efforts will be needed to make them real. This means working to disentangle confusions between “equality” and “equity” and embracing the power of both words. Recognizing the unique situation of each person calls for the tailored responsiveness of schools, employers, and providers of health care and social services; manifesting the dignity of each person requires ensuring each receives the same respect and also finds opportunities that are realities. How about embracing equality and equity—and their underlying goals—while concretely tackling the problems surrounding us? Ensure the respect for the dignity of each individual and overcome historic and ongoing barriers due to stereotypes, “isms,” and compounded exclusions and degradations: defend equal protection of the laws and advance systemic changes while attending to the unique situation of each person. It is a tall order, but it is what law and justice demand, and all the concepts and legal tools available should be used. Both “equality” and “equity” can help illuminate deep problems in human societies, and both offer tools to make a different and better world—if those who share visions of change work together.

Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris), Equality vs. Equity , T witter (N ov . 1, 2020), https://twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1322963321994289154?lang=en (6.4 million views).

Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, Exec. Order No. 13985, 86 Fed. Reg. 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021).

Joe Davidson, Susan Rice Wants Every Federal Agency to Focus on Racial Equity , W ash . P ost (Jan. 29, 2021) (quoting Susan Rice), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rice-biden-federal-racial-equity/2021/01/28/a9c0a3be-61b2-11eb-ac8f-4ae05557196e_story.html .

Noah Rothman, What They Really Mean by “Equity,” C ommentary (Jan. 27, 2021), https://www.commentarymagazine.com/noah-rothman/what-they-really-mean-by-equity/ .

Political scientist Charles Lipson asserted that “equity,” as used by the Biden administration, is only a buzzword hiding the important questions about the consequences of government coercion, bureaucratic regulation, and public expense. Charles Lipson, “ Equity” Is a Mandate to Discriminate , W all S t . J., Mar. 5, 2021, at A17. See Mike Gonzalez, Biden’s Embrace of “Equity” Means He’s Abandoned the Quest for Equality , T he H eritage F ound . (Feb. 2, 2021), https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/bidens-embrace-equity-means-hes-abandoned-the-quest-equality ; Andrew C. McCarthy, Merrick Garland Misleads on “Equity” and “Equality,” T he N at ’ l R ev . (Feb. 23, 2021), https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/merrick-garland-misleads-on-equity-and-equality/ ; Jason L. Riley, Progressives Put the Racial “Equity” Squeeze on Biden , W all S t . J. (Feb. 2, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/progressives-put-the-racial-equity-squeeze-on-biden-11612307761 .

Nick Niedzwiadek, Biden Issues Executive Orders Promoting Racial Equity , P olitico (Jan. 26, 2021), https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/26/biden-executive-orders-racial-equity-462663 .

Robert Kuttner, Will Biden Be Radical Enough? , A m . P rospect (Mar. 18, 2021), https://prospect.org/politics/will-biden-be-radical-enough/ .

Interaction Institute for Social Change, Equality & Equity: Cartoon Gallery , https://interactioninstitute.org/equalility-equality-cartoon-gallery/ .

A natole F rance , L e L ys R ouge [The Red Lily] 118 (1894), https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Le_Lys_rouge/VII .

E.g. , Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 980 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2020), cert. pending (rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program, holding that the program does not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the court relied on standards developed under the constitutional Equal Protection Clause).

Owen Fiss, Groups and the Equal Protection Clause , 5 P hil . & P ub . A ffs . 107, 147–56 (Winter 1976).

See , e.g. , Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “ We ” (quoted in Michael Posner, My Legal Hero: Ruth Bader Ginsburg , T he G uardian (Sept. 15, 2010)), https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/sep/15/legal-hero-ruth-bader-ginsburg ; Malcolm X: “Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary” (Malcom X, Speech at the Founding Rally of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (1964)), https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1964-malcolm-x-s-speech-founding-rally-organization-afro-american-unity/ ; Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The movement for equality and justice can only be a success if it has both a mass and militant character; the barriers to be overcome require both,” (D r . M artin L uther K ing , J r ., S tride T oward F reedom : T he M ontgomery S tory (1958)); Eleanor Roosevelt: “We must show by our behavior that we believe in equality and justice and that our religion teaches faith and love and charity to our fellow men,” (in E leanor R oosevelt , I ndia and the A wakening of the E ast (1963)), https://erpapers.columbian.gwu.edu/quotations .

See H eather M c G hee , T he S um of U s : W hat R acism C osts E veryone and H ow W e C an P rosper T ogether (2021).

20 Facts About U.S. Inequality that Everyone Should Know , S tanford C tr . on P overty & I neq . (2011), https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/20-facts-about-us-inequality-everyone-should-know .

The Gaps in Income Between Upper-Income and Middle- and Lower-Income Households Are Rising and the Share Held by Middle-Income Households Is Falling , P ew R sch . C tr . (Jan. 8, 2020), https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020/01/09/trends-in-income-and-wealth-inequality/screen-shot-2020-01-08-at-5-06-47-pm/ .

R obert D. P utnam with S haylyn R omney G arrett , T he U pswing : H ow A merica C ame T ogether a C entury A go and H ow W e C an D o I t A gain 285 (2020).

Zia Qureshi, Tackling the Inequality Pandemic: Is There a Cure? , B rookings (Nov. 17, 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/research/tackling-the-inequality-pandemic-is-there-a-cure/ .

Helen Cheung, George Floyd Death: Why US Protests Are So Powerful This Time , BBC (June 8, 2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52969905 . See Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System , T he S entencing P roject (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/ .

M artha M inow , I n B rown ’ s W ake : L egacies of A merica ’ s E ducational L andmark 7 (2010).

Compare the word “equality” in 1 O xford E nglish D ictionary 886 (compact ed. 1971) with the word “equity” in 1 O xford E nglish D ictionary 888 (compact ed. 1971). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “equal” (adj.) as “of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another,” “like in quality, nature, or status,” and “like for each member of a group, class, or society,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal , and defines “equality” (noun) as “the quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equality .

M erriam -W ebster D ictionary , https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equity . The O xford E nglish D ictionary offers as its first definition for “equity”: “the quality of being equal or fair.” Alternatively, the definitions include “what is fair and right,” “the recourse to general principles of justice … to correct or supplement the provisions of the law.”

Albert H. Kauffman, Equity and Adequacy Concepts as Considered in School Finance Court , IDRA N ewsletter (March 2004), https://www.idra.org/resource-center/equity-and-adequacy-concepts-as-considered-in-school-finance-court-cases/ . The school finance context itself has produced multiple and contrasting meanings of “equity.” See GAO, School Finance: Three States’ Experiences with Equity in School Funding (Dec. 1995), https://www.gao.gov/assets/hehs-96-39.pdf (report to congressional requesters).

Paul A. Minorini & Stephen D. Sugarman, School Finance Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future , in E quity and A dequacy in E ducation F inance : I ssues and P erspectives 34 (Helen F. Ladd et al. eds., 1999).

See , e.g. , Equity and Diversity , B uffalo S t . C oll ., https://equity.buffalostate.edu/ (last visited July 21, 2021).

Anne E. Casey Foundation, Equity vs. Equality and Other Racial Justice Definitions (Aug. 24, 2021), https://www.aecf.org/blog/racial-justice-definitions/ .

See F rederick P ollock , T he T ransformation of E quity , E ssays in L egal H istory 287 (1913); Sharon K. Dobbins, Equity: The Court of Conscience or the King’s Command, the Dialogues of St. German and Hobbes Compared , 9 J.L. & R eligion 113 (1991).

Hessel E. Yntema, Equity in the Civil Law and the Common Law , 15 A m . J. C omp . L. 60, 66–72 (1966–1967).

Id. at 84–86.

Tunku Varadarajan, How Equality Lost to “Equity,” W all S t . J. (Feb. 13–14, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-equality-lost-to-equity-11613155938 (quoting Shelby Steele).

Robert Berne & Leanna Stiefel, Concepts of Equity: 1970 to Present, in E quity and A dequacy in S chool F inance : B ackground P apers (H. F. Ladd et al. eds., 1999).

Yntema, supra note 28, at 60 (quoting J eremy B entham , Rationale of Judicial Evidence , in 7 W orks 291–92 (Bowring ed., 1843)).

Equity in Education , A chievement N etwork , (June 13, 2018), https://www.achievementnetwork.org/anetblog/eduspeak/equity-in-education .

See Blair Mann, Equity and Equality Are Not Equal , E duc . T r . (Mar. 12, 2014), https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/equity-and-equality-are-not-equal/ .

It is a contrast, but not a contradiction, to see an individual as a member of a group. See Benjamin Eidelson, Respect, Individualism, and Colorblindness , 129 Y ale L. J. 1600 (2020), https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/EidelsonArticle_q57kq826.pdf . The social meanings attached to group membership contribute to the experiences and identity of each individual and, in turn, are part of what respecting that individual as an individual entails.

Attributed to Naheed Dosani, in Lisa A. Koenecke, The Letter “E” … Equality v. Equity (Aug. 18, 2019), https://lisakoenecke.com/2019/08/18/the-letter-e-equality-vs-equity/ . (Koenecke is an Indiana school counselor and “inclusion ally.”)

See About IDEA , U.S. Dep ’ t of E duc ., https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/ .

S teven C. B ahls , A ugustana C ollege , W hat ’ s M ost I mportant : E quity or E quality ? (Nov. 23, 2015), https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=presidentsstatements .

Jonathan Shieber, For DeRay Mckesson, the Social Justice Movement Needs to Move from the Streets to the Statehouse , T ech C runch (June 6, 2017), https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/06/for-deray-mckesson-the-social-justice-movement-needs-to-move-from-the-streets-to-the-statehouse/ . See D e R ay M ckesson , O n the O ther S ide of F reedom : T he C ase for H ope (2018).

Verna Myers, Harvard Business School Has a Problem: Here’s How to Fix It , R efinery 29 (May 24, 2017), https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/05/156009/harvard-business-school-diversity-issue-essay . See Daniel Juday, Inclusion Isn’t “Being Asked to Dance,” L inked I n (May 3, 2017), https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inclusion-isnt-being-asked-dance-daniel-juday .

Cynthia Olmedo, Quotes , G ood R eads , https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/list/12145101-cynthia-olmedo .

eXtension Organizing Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, What Is Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? , E xtension F oundation (2021), https://dei.extension.org/ .

People, Diversity, and Inclusion: Our Values (2021), F ord F ound ., https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/people/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ .

Kris Putnam-Walkerly & Elizabeth Russell, What the Heck Does “Equity” Mean? , S tan . S oc . I nnovation R ev . (Sept. 15, 2016), https://ssir.org/articles/entry/what_the_heck_does_equity_mean .

Our Vision for DEI , C ode for Am . https://www.codeforamerica.org/diversity (regarding work with governments, design, and tech firms) (last visited July 21, 2021). For a very similar definition, see Beyond the DE&I Acronym: What Are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion? , YW B oston (Mar. 26, 2016) (quoting Fatima Dainkeh).

Anna Louie Sussman, How to End “Women’s Work”: New Zealand Is Pursuing a Century-Old Idea to Close the Gender Pay Gap , N. Y. T imes (Nov. 13, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/opinion/women-pay-gender-gap.html (drawing on 1919 International Labor Organization constitution citing “the principle that men and women should receive remuneration for work of equal value”).

See , e.g. , Equality v. Equity , D iffen , https://www.diffen.com/difference/Equality-vs-Equity (a picture illustrating the concepts of equality, equity and justice) (last visited July 21, 2021).

Koenecke, supra note 36.

Meg Bolger, What’s the Difference Between Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity? , G eneral A ssembly B log (May 24, 2020), https://generalassemb.ly/blog/diversity-inclusion-equity-differences-in-meaning/ .

Sandesh Adhikari, Equity vs. Equality: 20 Differences! , P ub . H ealth N otes (May 16, 2017), https://www.publichealthnotes.com/equity-vs-equality/ .

“Equality is the end result that we all seek to achieve. But, to get there, we must first ensure equity. Equity ensures that those people who are behind (socially, economically, politically, geographically, etc.) others get a little bit of extra support and push so that they can reach to their fullest potential and stand on equal ground with everyone. Therefore, although equity and equality are meaningfully different to each other, they are also deeply inter-related with each other.” Id.

“Equality is undermined when equity is used incorrectly; it is undermined when a person or group’s needs are not taken into account.” Daisy, Equality and Equity , S oc . C hange B log (Mar. 29, 2019), https://social-change.co.uk/blog/2019-03-29-equality-and-equity .

Owen Fiss, Another Equality: The Origins and Fate of Antisubordination Theory , 2 I ssues in L egal S cholarship , art. 20 (2004), https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/faculty/papers/Fiss_AnotherEquality.pdf ; Reva B. Siegel, Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles Over Brown, 117 H arv . L. R ev . 1470 (2003–2004); Cass R. Sunstein, The Anticaste Principle, 92 M ich . L. R ev . 2410 (1993). See I sabel W ilkinson , C aste (2020).

B rian B arry , W hy S ocial J ustice M atters (2005); Richard J. Arneson, Does Social Justice Matter? Brian Barry’s Applied Political Philosophy , 117 E thics 391 (2007), https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/511732 .

R osalie S ilberman A bella , E quality in E mployment : A R oyal C ommission R eport (1984), https://equalpaycoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Equality-in-Employment-A-Royal-Commission-Report-Abella-Complete-Report.pdf . For further exploration of developments in Canada, see Anthony Robert Sangiuliano, Substantive Equality as Equal Recognition: A New Theory of Section 15 of the Charter , 52 O sgoode H all L. J. 601 (2015), https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol52/iss2/9 . See Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General) [2020] S.C.C. 28 (Can.) (rejecting on equality grounds pension plan devised for job-sharing due to adverse impact on women and children with the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage); R v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41 (finding legally protected advantages for Indigenous fishing rights compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms despite an antidiscrimination clause). For a critique of Canadian equality jurisprudence, see Judy Fudge, Substantive Equality, The Supreme Court of Canada, and the Limits to Redistribution , 23 S. A fr . J. H um . R ts . 235 (2007).

Nancy Kranich, Equality and Equity of Access: What’s the Difference? , A m . L ibr . A ss ’ n (Mar. 3, 2005), https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/equalityequity .

B arry , supra note 54.

See , e.g. , Arneson, supra note 54.

Miranda Parker & Mark Guzdial, Equity Versus Equality: A Proposed Study of Issues of Justice in Computer Science Education (Workshop on Exploring Social Justice, Design, and HCI, Chicago, 2016).

See Mann, supra note 34.

See , e.g. , J ames S. F ishkin , J ustice , E qual O pportunity , and the F amily (1983); M artha M inow , M arking A ll the D ifference : I nclusion , E xclusion , and A merican L aw (1990); D ouglas R ae , E qualities (1981); T.M. Scanlon, The Diversity of Objections to Inequality , in T he D ifficulty of T olerance : E ssays in P olitical P hilosophy 202 (2003); M ichael W alzer , S pheres O f J ustice : A D efense O f P luralism A nd E quality (1983).

J ohn R awls , A T heory of J ustice 7 (1971).

K aterina F orrester , I n T he S hadow of J ustice : P ostwar L iberalism and the R emaking of P olitical P hilosophy 252 (2019); T ommie S helby , D ark G hettos : I njustice , D issent , and R eform (2018).

There are yet further distinctions. For example, Rae explores differences between absolute and relative equalities, R ae supra note 63, at 104–29. Scholars also explore the difficult relationship between respect for groups through valuing pluralism—in culture, religion, and other social differences—and respect for individuals regardless of group. See W alzer , supra note 63; Heather Gerken, Second-Order Diversity , 118 H arv . L. R ev . 1099 (2005); I ris M arion Y oung , J ustice and the P olitics of D ifference (1990); Robert L. Simon, Pluralism and Equality: The Status of Minority Values in a Democracy , in NOMOS XXXII M ajorities and M inorities 207 (John W. Chapman & Alan Wertheimer eds., 1990); Will Kymlicka & Ian Shapiro, Introduction , in NOMOS XXXIX E thnicity and G roup R ights (Ian Shapiro and Will Kymlicka eds., 1997).

See M artha M inow , M aking A ll the D ifference : I nclusion , E xclusion , and A merican L aw (1990).

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).

G eorge B ernard S haw , M an and S uperman 227 (1903).

See J effrey W attles , T he G olden R ule 6 (1996); Jouni Reinikainen, The Golden Rule and the Requirement of Universalizability , 39 J. V alue I nquiry 155 (2005); Daniel Rönnedal, The Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule , 49 J. V alue I nquiry 221 (2015).

Peter Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality , 95 H arv . L. R ev . 537 (1982). Dean Erwin Chemerinsky defends equality as necessary but not sufficient. Erwin Chemerinsky, In Defense of Equality: A Reply to Professor Westen , 81 M ich . L. R ev . 575 (1983). On leveling up and leveling down, see L arry T emkin , I nequality 256 (1993); Deborah L. Brake, When Equality Leaves Everyone Worse Off: The Problem of Leveling Down in Equality Law , 46 W m . & M ary L. R ev . 513 (2004); Louis Michael Seidman, The Ratchet Wreck: Equality’s Leveling Down Problem (2020), S cholarship @ G eorgetown L aw , https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3348&context=facpub .

29 U.S.C. § 206; Equal Pay for Equal Work U.S. D ep ’ t of L ab ., https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/equal-pay-for-equal-work .

Jordan’s Principle: Substantive Equality Principles G ov ’ t of C an ., https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1583698429175/1583698455266 ; Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, It Takes a Vision: The Constitutionalization of Equality in Canada , 14 Y ale J. L. & F eminism 363 (2002), https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1197&context=yjlf .

Amartya Sen, Equality of What?, Tanner Lecture on Human Values at Stanford University (May 22, 1979), in O xford P overty and H uman D evelopment I nitiative 198, https://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sen-1979_Equality-of-What.pdf .

Id. at 202, 208, 215–16.

Id. at 219.

Jack M. Balkin & Reva B. Siegel, The American Civil Rights Tradition: Anticlassification or Antisubordination? , 58 U. M iami L. R ev . 9 (2003).

See M inow , supra note 67.

M ichael J. S andel , T he T yranny of M erit : W hat ’ s B ecome of the C ommon G ood ? (2020). Others would give greater emphasis to the impact of racial hierarchy, winner-take-all economic structures, and the intergenerational stickiness of social and economic status. See the symposium in this issue of the American Journal of Law & Equality .

See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). For ongoing debates over even the nonmandatory, advisory use of the sentencing guidelines, see Henry D. Stegner, An End to Arbitrary and Capricious Federal Sentencing Guidelines , 53 I daho L. R ev . 739 (2017).

See Chelsea Barabas et al., Interventions Over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for Actuarial Risk Assessment , P roc . M ach . L earning R sch ., https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.08238.pdf ; Jon Kleinberg et al., Human Decisions and Machine Predictions , 133 Q.J. E con . 237 (2018).

David G. Robinson & Logan Koepke, Civil Rights and Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments , S afety & J ust . C hallenge (Dec. 2019), https://www.safetyandjusticechallenge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Robinson-Koepke-Civil-Rights-Critical-Issue-Brief.pdf .

Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

See State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts , N at ’ l C onf . of S tate L egislatures , https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-rfra-statutes.aspx (last visited July 21, 2021); see also Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act , U.S. D ep ’ t of J ust ., https://www.justice.gov/crt/religious-land-use-and-institutionalized-persons-act (last visited July 21, 2021); The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. (2000). This statute is narrowly crafted to match prior Supreme Court decisions and, hence, comports with congressional power to “enforce” the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709 (2005).

See Michelle Boorstein, Religious Conservatives Hopeful New Supreme Court Majority Will Redefine Religious Precedents , W ash . P ost (Nov. 3, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/11/03/supreme-court-religious-liberty-fulton-catholic-philadelphia-amy-coney-barrettt/ (analyzing Fulton v. City of Phila. and related challenges).

Samuel R. Bagenstos, Universalism and Civil Rights (and Notes on Voting Rights after Shelby), 123 Y ale L. J. 2838 (2014).

See F red S chauer , P rofiles , P robabilities , and S tereotypes (2006).

MacArthur Foundation, S afety and J ustice C hallenge E xchange , Post by Christopher James (Mar. 4, 2021), https://sjcexchange.org/communities/community-home/digestviewer/viewthread?GroupId=67&MessageKey=a169ca9b-ede9-43e5-a245-59fd695d695a&CommunityKey=11457db5-8e01-4936-a751-b71316e003c1&tab=digestviewer&ReturnUrl=/sjcexchange/participate/allrecentposts .

See G oogle , https://www.google.com/search?q=equality+vs+equity&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS832US832&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=OT5xzuGhtpEewM%252COos-SGIo6maNjM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRyPxRmhE0DIZolwjsa11NI6dX_Qw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwij4I7B8IfuAhUmEVkFHYmgCpkQ9QF6BAgIEAE#imgrc=OT5xzuGhtpEewM&imgdii=JdNU0IJx7pwc7M .

Kurt Vonnegut, Harrison Bergeron, in W elcome to the M onkey H ouse (1968) (reprinting story published in October 1961 in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction ).

See supra at note 31 (describing versions of the cartoon with a chain-link fence), https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.squarespace.com%2Fstatic%2F56e8182ba3360ced7374b83b%2Ft%2F5cff1b41c23db700017bede2%2F1560222542076%2Fequity.jpg%3Fformat%3D1500w&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bethanyunitedchurch.ca%2Fministers-blog%2F2019%2F6%2F11%2Fnot-always-fair&tbnid=bd19bhEfzJvMNM&vet=10CAMQxiAoAGoXChMIkNugxPCH7gIVAAAAAB0AAAAAECo..i&docid=r_2EmItG-05abM&w=300&h=225&itg=1&q=equality%20vs%20equity&ved=0CAMQxiAoAGoXChMIkNugxPCH7gIVAAAAAB0AAAAAECo . Another cartoon compares “equality” (depicting people of different sizes and one who uses a wheelchair all given bicycles of the same size), and “equity” (showing individuals with wheeled vehicles that fit their size and needs). See EmbraceRace, Because Treating People Fairly Often Means Treating Them Differently ), F acebook (Apr. 21, 2018), https://www.facebook.com/weembracerace/posts/1899951163363071?comment_id=1904110452947142 .

R v. Kapp, [2008] S.C.C. 41 (Can.) https://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2008/2008scc41/2008scc41.html .

See Fiss, supra note 53, at 8–9, 25.

Thomas Sowell, The Fallacy of Fairness , C reators S yndicate (Feb. 8, 2010), https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/02/10/the-fallacy-of-fairness . See generally T homas S owell , I ntellectuals and S ociety (2012).

Parker & Guzdial, supra note 63. See Univ. of Tex. McCombs Sch. of Bus., Veil of Ignorance , E thics U nwrapped , https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/veil-of-ignorance (last visited July 21, 2021).

See R awls , supra note 64; John Rawls, Justice as Fairness , 67 P hil . R ev . 164 (1958); see also Ben Davis, John Rawls and the “Veil of Ignorance,” in I ntroduction to E thics 92–97, https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/john-rawls-and-the-veil-of-ignorance/ .

Gallie himself repeatedly revised his own discussions of this term regarding disputed concepts. Walter Bryce Gallie, Essentially Contested Concepts , 56 P roc . A ristotelian S oc ’ y 167 (1956); Walter Bryce Gallie, Art as an Essentially Contested Concept , 6 P hil . Q. 97 (1956); Walter Bryce Gallie, Essentially Contested Concepts , in P hilosophy and the H istorical U nderstanding 157 (1964).

John N. Gray, On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts , 5 P ol . T heory 331, 334 (1977).

W illiam L ittle , I ntroduction to S ociology (2nd Canadian edition, 2013), https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology2ndedition/chapter/chapter-9-social-inequality-in-canada/ . “Equity of condition” does not mean a permanent commitment to identical outcomes as much as to an effort to make “equal opportunity” genuine and not rigged based on past privileges and disadvantages. Canadian law reflects contributions by many, notably including Judge (later Justice) Rosie Abella, see supra note 58.

L ittle , supra note 102.

Hilary Page, Formal Equality vs. Substantive Equality: When Equality Doesn’t Mean Equal Treatment , S pring L aw : E mp . & H um . R ts . L. in C an . (Feb. 26, 2020), https://www.canadaemploymenthumanrightslaw.com/2020/02/formal-equality-vs-substantive-equality-when-equality-doesnt-mean-equal-treatment/ .

See R ichard R eeves , D ream H oarders : H ow the A merican U pper M iddle C lass I s L eaving E veryone E lse in the D ust , W hy T hat I s a P roblem , and W hat to D o A bout I t (2017); R ichard R othstein , T he C olor of L aw : A F orgotten H istory of H ow O ur G overnment S egregated A merica (2017); Raj Chetty et al., Race and Economic Opportunity in the United States: An Intergenerational Perspective , 135 Q. J. E con . 711 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz042 ; Larry DeWitt, The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act , 70 S oc . S ec . B ull . (2010), https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html ; Michael Heller & James Salzman, Opinion: America’s Ultra-Wealthy Have Pulled Off a Brilliant Heist—in South Dakota , W ash . P ost (Mar. 19, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/19/we-need-rein-billionaires-start-with-south-dakota/ ; Thomas Wilson Mitchell, Reforming Property Law to Address Devastating Land Loss , 66 A la . L. R ev . 1 (2014); Andre M. Perry et al., The Devaluation of Assets in Black Neighborhoods: The Case of Residential Property , B rookings I nst . (Nov. 27, 2018), https://www.brookings.edu/research/devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/ .

See M c G hee , supra note 14.

See R andall K ennedy , R ace , C rime , and the L aw (1998).

Tom Simonite, Algorithms Were Supposed to Fix the Bail System. They Haven’t , W ired (Feb. 19, 2020), https://www.wired.com/story/algorithms-supposed-fix-bail-system-they-havent/ .

Nico Savidge, Prop 25 Failed but California’s Fight Over Cash Bail Is Far from Over , M ercury N ews (Nov. 12, 2020), https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/11/12/prop-25-failed-but-californias-fight-over-cash-bail-is-far-from-over/ .

Courtney Lam, Pretrial Services: An Effective Alternative to Monetary Bail , C tr . J uv . & C rim . J ust . (2014), https://nicic.gov/pretrial-services-effective-alternative-monetary-bail .

Toluse Olorunnipa & Moriah Balingit, Biden’s Push for Equity Faces Critical Test Amid Shifting Strategies to Open Schools , W ash . P ost (Mar. 14, 2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-schools-reopening-equity/2021/03/13/e1a457ee-8020-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.html .

Id. (“Predominantly White school districts got $23 billion more in funding than did predominantly non-White districts in 2016, even though they served roughly the same number of schoolchildren, according to EdBuild, an organization dedicated to studying school funding disparities that disbanded last year.”).

See Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (rejecting laws forbidding interracial marriage as enforcing white supremacy); Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 1 (1954) (stating that racially separate schooling mandated by law can never be equal); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880) (stating that the post–Civil War amendments’ purpose was the “securing to a race recently emancipated [all] the civil rights the superior race enjoy”).

E ric F oner , T he S econd F ounding : H ow the C ivil W ar and R econstruction R emade the C onstitution (2019).

On history and memory, see, for example, F our H undred S ouls : A C ommunity H istory of A frican A merica , 1619–2019 (Ibram X. Kendi & Keisha N. Blain eds., 2021); I sabel W ilkerson , C aste : T he O rigins of O ur D iscontents (2020); for films, see, for example, D o the R ight T hing (Spike Lee 1989); G et O ut (Jordan Peele 2017); I A m N ot Y our N egro (Raoul Peck 2016) (a documentary film based on James Baldwin’s unfinished manuscript Remember This House ); for memoirs, see, for example, C harles B. D ew , T he M aking of a R acist : A S outherner R eflects on F amily , H istory , and the S lave T rade (2016); M ichelle O bama , B ecoming (2018).

Author notes

Email alerts.

Advertisement

Related Articles

Related book chapters, affiliations.

• Online ISSN 2694-5711

A product of The MIT Press

Mit press direct.

• About MIT Press Direct

Information

• Accessibility
• For Authors
• For Customers
• For Librarians
• Direct to Open
• Open Access
• Media Inquiries
• Rights and Permissions
• For Advertisers
• About the MIT Press
• The MIT Press Reader
• MIT Press Blog
• Seasonal Catalogs
• MIT Press Home
• Give to the MIT Press
• Direct Service Desk
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Crossref Member
• COUNTER Member  
• The MIT Press colophon is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Search the United Nations

• Member States

Main Bodies

• Secretary-General
• Secretariat
• Emblem and Flag
• ICJ Statute
• Nobel Peace Prize
• Peace and Security
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Aid
• Sustainable Development and Climate
• International Law
• Global Issues
• Official Languages
• Observances
• Events and News
• Get Involved
• Israel-Gaza Crisis
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 ( General Assembly resolution 217 A ) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and it has been translated into over 500 languages . The UDHR is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels (all containing references to it in their preambles). 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore,

The General Assembly,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

• Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
• Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
• Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
• Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
• Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
• Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

• Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

• Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
• Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
• Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

• Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

• Text of the Declaration
• History of the Declaration
• Drafters of the Declaration
• The Foundation of International Human Rights Law
• Human Rights Law

2023: UDHR turns 75

What is the Declaration of Human Rights? Narrated by Morgan Freeman.

UN digital ambassador Elyx animates the UDHR

To mark the 75th anniversary of the UDHR in December 2023, the United Nations has partnered once again with French digital artist YAK (Yacine Ait Kaci) – whose illustrated character Elyx is the first digital ambassador of the United Nations – on an animated version of the 30 Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

UDHR Illustrated

Read the Illustrated edition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

UDHR in 80+ languages

Watch and listen to people around the world reading articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in more than 80 languages.

Women Who Shaped the Declaration

Women delegates from various countries played a key role in getting women’s rights included in the Declaration. Hansa Mehta of India (standing above Eleanor Roosevelt) is widely credited with changing the phrase "All men are born free and equal" to "All human beings are born free and equal" in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• General Assembly
• Security Council
• Economic and Social Council
• Trusteeship Council
• International Court of Justice

Departments / Offices

• UN System Directory
• UN System Chart
• Global Leadership
• UN Information Centres

Resources / Services

• Emergency information
• Reporting Wrongdoing
• Guidelines for gender-inclusive language
• UN iLibrary
• UN Chronicle
• UN Yearbook
• Publications for sale
• Media Accreditation
• NGO accreditation at ECOSOC
• NGO accreditation at DGC
• Visitors’ services
• Procurement
• Internships
• Academic Impact
• UN Archives
• UN Audiovisual Library
• How to donate to the UN system
• Information on COVID-19 (Coronavirus)
• Africa Renewal
• Ten ways the UN makes a difference
• High-level summits 2023

Key Documents

• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization

News and Media

• Press Releases
• Spokesperson
• Social Media
• The Essential UN
• Awake at Night podcast

Issues / Campaigns

• Sustainable Development Goals
• Our Common Agenda
• Summit of the Future
• Climate Action
• UN and Sustainability
• Action for Peacekeeping (A4P)
• Global Ceasefire
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law
• Action to Counter Terrorism
• Victims of Terrorism
• Children and Armed Conflict
• Violence Against Children (SRSG)
• Sexual Violence in Conflict
• Refugees and Migrants
• Action Agenda on Internal Displacement
• Spotlight Initiative
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• Prevention of Genocide and the Responsibility to Protect
• The Rwanda Genocide
• The Holocaust
• The Question of Palestine
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade
• Decolonization
• Messengers of Peace
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation
• Digital Financing Task Force
• Data Strategy
• Countering Disinformation
• UN75: 2020 and Beyond
• Women Rise for All
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe
• Black Sea Grain Initiative Joint Coordination Centre
• Türkiye-Syria Earthquake Response (Donate)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUALITY: IN RELATION TO SERVICE MATTERS

Related Papers

Oluwatosin O Ademodi

Non-discrimination is a fundamental principle of modern human rights law. It is the cornerstone of a fair and just society, and it is enshrined in numerous international and national legal instruments. At the international level, the principle of equality is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.1 The principle is also reflected in other international human rights instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The principle of non-discrimination, on the other hand, prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and disability.2Non-discrimination is essential for the promotion and protection of human rights, as it ensures that everyone is treated with dignity and respect and has the opportunity to enjoy their rights on an equal footing.3 In modern human rights law, the principle of equality and non-discrimination is considered to be the highest norm.4 This means that it takes precedence over other principles and must be upheld at all times. For example, if a law or policy is found to be discriminatory, it must be amended or abolished, even if it serves a legitimate purpose.5 The principle of equality and non-discrimination is not limited to the protection of individual rights. It also has a collective dimension, which means that it applies to groups of people who may face discrimination due to their shared characteristics.6 For example, indigenous peoples, minority groups, and people with disabilities are often subject to discrimination and may require specific measures to ensure their equality and non-discrimination. Equality and non-discrimination are not just abstract concepts; they have practical implications for the lives of individuals and communities. When these principles are violated, it can have serious consequences, such as poverty, marginalization, and social exclusion. On the other hand, when they are respected and upheld, they can lead to greater social cohesion, harmony, and prosperity. In light of this, this essay will explore the origin and evolution of the principle of equality and non-discrimination in modern human rights law, It will also examine the relationship between equality and non-discrimination and other principles of modern human rights law and its role in promoting and protecting human rights. Finally, the role of national and international institutions in promoting and protecting the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

Tarun Khaitan

Discusses the Indian Supreme Court's jurisprudence on unconstitutionality challenges against statutes for violation of the right to equality

Fowowe I Adetomiwa

The paper critically examines the concept of the "rule of law" in contemporary society, acknowledging its widespread use and the potential for it to become a subjective tool serving various political objectives. Despite the challenges in providing a precise definition, the paper argues in favor of the rule of law's importance due to its ability to motivate individuals, ensure accountability across entities, and drive political and social change. The historical roots of the concept are explored, highlighting recent efforts by scholars, judges, and lawyers to define it more precisely. The primary focus of the paper is on the principle of "equality before the law" as a crucial aspect of the rule of law. The analysis delves into the application of this principle in diverse societal contexts, while also addressing critiques. The paper concludes with recommendations for understanding and upholding the rule of law, emphasizing its pivotal role in supporting political and legal reforms.

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Andra Puran

Legal Theory

Frej K Thomsen

Despite the attention equality before the law has received, both laudatory and critical, peculiarly little has been done to precisely define it. The first ambition of this paper is to remedy this, by exploring the various ways in which a principle of equality before the law can be understood and suggest a concise definition. With a clearer understanding of the principle in hand we are better equipped to assess traditional critique of the principle. Doing so is the second ambition of this paper. I will argue that traditional criticisms are unpersuasive, but that there is a different, powerful argument against equality before the law. The third ambition of the paper is to argue that there is a sense, overlooked by both proponents and critics, in which the principle still captures something important, albeit at the cost of shifting from intrinsic to instrumental value.

Contributions to Indian Sociology

Upendra Baxi

jasleen soin

Cheng Nishang

RELATED PAPERS

Nick Garrett

Đề cương cuối kì Mac 2 cô Quế Anh FTU

Tiểu Anh Bùi Thị

Pensando Revista De Filosofia

Evandro Barbosa

Tạp chí Phẫu thuật Tim mạch và Lồng ngực Việt Nam

Nguyễn Văn Trường

ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research

Early Evolution of the Universe and its Present Structure

Kenneth Brecher

Rupesh Nakar

Intan Yulinar

Adriana Peña-romero

Alain Gelibter

Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

KOJI KASANUKI

Maria Cristina D'Adamo

Ahmed Mohammed

Ilham Faozi

Journal of Advanced Research

Naukovì zapiski Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu «Ostrozʹka akademìâ»

Oksana Kaliberda

Benjamin Schrader

Ingeniare. Revista chilena de ingeniería

oscar araque

Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

Shyam Bhandari

Jose Antonio Garcia del Castillo

discourse: Deakin University Library research and practice

Christine Oughtred

Critique internationale

Luis Esteban Martinez

Julio Di Rienzo

CSA ServiceNow

wokih bitofee

Deep-sea Research Part Ii-topical Studies in Oceanography

Alexei Pinchuk

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Introduction, Meaning, Importance, Dimensions, Types, Problems - Equality | 11th Political Science : Chapter 3 : Basic Concepts of Political Science

Chapter: 11th political science : chapter 3 : basic concepts of political science, introduction, understanding equality.

The idea that human beings are equal is enigmatic. A nation that seeks equality creates laws to bring change in its society. A law for equality is inadequate and opposed where pluralistic pattern of society has become the order of the day whether it’s a developed or under developed nation. Liberty and rights lead to a third principle in political theory, which is of equality. Equality determines how rights are to be distributed amongst the individuals as citizens and groups, both whether equally or unequally. If unequally then what are the grounds for unequal treatment?. On what ground the state or the public authority relate with citizens, individuals and groups unequally. When we talk of equality, we imply different meanings at different times. In liberal perspective, legal and political  equality may be emphasized more than economic equality.  

On the other hand, in a socialist and Marxian framework emphasis is more on economic equality. A feminist would argue that gender equality is vital while in a caste divided society like India, it could be argued that social equality is more essential, if other dimensions are to be meaningful.

Learning Objectives

·               Establishing egalitarian society may look utopian but neglecting it may lead to chaos and anarchy will make welfare states meaningless.

·               Students from various background is given an opportunity to understand the concept of equality and inequality in a balanced manner.

·               The relevance of struggle made by women, minorities, dalits and linguistic groups for equality is explored.

·               Participation of an individual as a citizen of a nation in streamlining the thought of doing justice to equality as a common national goal is pertinent.

Meaning of Equality

Equality, which means state of being equal, is derived from aequs/ aequalis, meaning fair. It signifies ‘having the same rights, privileges, treatments, status, and opportunities’. Equality is treated as something that relates to distributive principle because of which rights, treatments, and opportunities are distributed amongst the beneficiaries in a fair manner. Fairness does not mean all to be treated equally in all circumstances. In fact it very well means unequal treatment for those who are unequal. Essentially it relates to the principle of justice because it requires fair distributive principle .

However those who are equal should not be treated as unequal and the unequal as equal.

Importance of Equality

Why equality is important.

The most powerful moral and political ideal that has inspired and guided human society for several centuries is equality. Every all faith and religion invariably proclaim that all human beings are creation of God. The concept of equality as a political ideal invokes the idea that all human beings have an equal worth regardless of their color, gender, race, or nationality. It urges among human beings equal consideration and respect because of the common humanity. The belief in this notion of humanity led us to the declaration of universal human rights.

Equality became the slogan in the struggle against states and social institutions which uphold inequalities of rank, wealth, status or privilege, among people during the modern period. In the eighteenth century, the French revolutionaries used the slogan ‘Liberty, Equality and Fraternity’ to revolt against the landed feudal aristocracy and the monarchy. The demand for equality was also raised during anti-colonial struggle in Asia and Africa during the twentieth century. It continues to be raised by struggling group such as women or dalits who feel marginalized in our society.

Equality now has become a widely accepted ideal which is embodied in the constitutions and laws in the world. However the most visible and disturbing factor around us in the world and as well in our society is inequality. We can see in country slums existing side by side with luxury housing, schools which may lack even drinking water facilities or toilets, waste of food as well as starvation. There are visible difference between what law promises and what we see around us.

India through its constitution attempts to fill the gap between equal and unequal with the principle of equality as enshrined in the constitution.

Dimensions of Equality

What is equality.

We live amidst distinctions between human beings on the ground of race and color, knowing well it is unacceptable. In fact such distinctions violate our intuitive understanding of equality which tells us that all human beings are entitled to similar respect and consideration because of their common humanity. No society treats all its members in exactly the same way under all circumstances. There can be no identity of treatment so long as men are different in wants, capacities, and needs. Injustice arises much from treating unequal’s equally as from treating equals unequally. And most importantly apart from the natural inequalities, there are inequalities created by the society- inequality based upon birth, wealth, knowledge and religion.

The movement of history is not towards greater equality because as fast as we eliminate one inequality, we create another one: the difference being that the one we discard is unjustifiable while the one we create seems reasonable. Hence the social political, educational equalities are always in need of reinforcement and reinterpretation by every new generation. Like liberty, equality can also be understood in its negative and positive aspects. Negative equality was associated with the end of such privileges and positively it meant the availability of opportunity.

According to Laski equality means:

·               Absence of privileges. It means that will of one is equal to the will of any other. It means equality of rights

·               Adequate opportunities are laid open to all. Opportunities should be given to all to realize the implications of his personality.

·               All must have access to social benefits and no one should be restricted on any ground. The inequalities by birth or because of parentage and hereditary causes are unreasonable

·               Absence of economic and social exploitation

A state divided into a small number of rich and large number of poor will always develop a government manipulated by the rich to protect the amenities represented by their property.

                                                                             - Harold laski

According to Barker , the concept of equality means

v    Fundamental equalities of all

v    Equality of opportunity

v    Equality of conditions where there is an attempt to make the conditions of life equal

v    Equality of outcome of results

MUKILAN TOO HAS A DREAM …

Mukilan works in a Brickkiln in Silaiman, near Madurai. The following is an extract of the interview:

Correspondent: What is your day life?

I wake up at 6.00 a.m. and go to the Brickkiln to help my parents. from 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. I am at Bridge Course entry (run by a non-government organization) Then after lunch at about 3.00 p.m. I again to help my parents at the Brickkiln and by 6.30 p.m. I return to my nut. I have been enrolled in the school nearby, so now days I go to school by 10.00 a.m. come back by 3.00 p.m. It is difficult for me to attend school regularly, as our family income is very low and sometimes I have to sell peas and nuts.

Correspondent:

Tell us about your family. What do your parents do?

My mother is a homemaker/ my father works in a Brickkiln. I feel sad that I cannot spend time with my two elder brothers, since they stay in Kolkata. They are day laborers. My brothers, Raja Pandi(19 years) and Muniasamy(16 years) left school. When they were in Std’s IV and VI respectively. Both had worked in Brickkilns before me. I have two sisters also. Tamil Selvi(10 years), who is studying in Std III at the Government School. My other sister, Yazhini , is now 22 years and is married. She studied up to Std V.

When you grow up, What would you like to be?

I always wanted to be a doctor or to work in a pharmaceutical company, since that helps people.

Correspondent: Do you have dreams?

My dream to be live in a good house and to travel in a car.

Equality of opportunities

The concept of equality implies that all people as human being are entitled to the same rights and opportunities to develop the skills and talents, to pursue their goals and ambitions. However, it is not the lack of equality of status or wealth or privilege that is significant but the inequality in peoples access to such basic goods, as education, health care, safe housing that make for an unequal and unjust society.

Natural inequality and social inequality

Natural inequalities are those that emerge between people as a result of their different capabilities and talents. These kinds of inequalities are different from socially produced inequalities which emerge as a consequence of inequalities of opportunity or the exploitation of some groups in a society by others. Natural inequalities are considered to be the result of the different characteristics and abilities with which people are born with. Social inequalities on the other hand are those created by society. Unequal treatment in society based on race, color, gender and caste are of social inequalities. Women were denied equal rights for centuries similarly, Blacks were treated as slaves until the institution of slavery was questioned . Even people born with disability with modern technological innovations are able to contribute like any other normal person. Stephen Hawkings, contribution despite his disability is remarkable. Political philosophers have contributed various theories, philosophies and ideologies for further understanding and innovation to place society on equal platform.

Read the cartoon and identify the context of what type of inequalities are represented in this cartoon?

Let us know the dimensions of equality

What are the different types of equality?

Civil Equality

·                No discrimination (religion, belief, etc)

Political Equality

·                Access to authority

·                Voting

Social Equality

·                Opportunity

·                Privileges

Natural Equality

·                Natural rights

Economic Equality

·                Wealth

  (i) Social Equality

Social equality means no one should be discriminated in the distribution of rights, privileges and opportunities based on birth, caste, religion, race, colour, gender or social status. Each one should be given equal opportunity to develop his personality. Social equality implies few important aspects. They are: removal of discrimination based on social status, absence of special privileges to few and finally ensuring equal opportunity in terms of acquiring education. History reveals that certain forms of social inequality world over were rejected and the demand for social equality are being raised. Slavery in South Africa, west Asia and America, untouchability in India, Racial discrimination n in USA against Blacks, Policy of Hitler against Jews and gender related inequalities and discrimination are few examples of social inequalities with countries world over are trying to redress with the policy of government. Civil rights movement in United States of America for Blacks by Martin Luther king Jr and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar’s effort for the social equality for the lower caste in India are few examples that set movement for social equality in motion.

Martin Luther king Jr. was an unquestioned leader of nonviolent civil Rights movement in USA.

Civil right movement was a struggle for social justice happened during the 1950s and 1960s for blacks to gain equal rights under the law in the United states. Similarly Dr.B.R.Ambedkars liberation movement for millions of dalits was a historic movement in India. A seed for the movement for social equality.

The American declaration announced that ‘all men are created equal’, French declaration of Rights of Man and citizens declared that ‘men are born and always continue free and equal in their rights. The United Nations organization on 10th December, 1948, declared the charter of human rights which laid stress on social equality. However according to the report of Amnesty International, these rights have been violated frequently by a number of countries in the past and still efforts are being made to address the issues of social inequality world over.

(ii) Civil Equality

The word ‘civil’ is derived from the Latin word civilis or civis, which means citizen. Civil equality means equality in which each citizen is provided with equal civil rights and liberties. Civil equality consists of similar civil liberties and civil  rights by all the citizens. Civil laws should treat all the individuals equally.

There should not be any discrimination of superior and inferior, the rich and the poor, caste and creed, colour and race, clans and tribes, groups and classes. In England, Rule of law is in force and in the eyes of the rule of law all are equal. Equal treatment is given to all by the rule of law. It is from the British constitution India had adopted the rule of law.

(iii) Political Equality

Political Equality means equal right of all citizens, without any distinction, allowed to participate in the affairs of the state. Political right of all citizen is ensured through universal adult franchise. The other factors that ensure the political rights of citizens are:

·               Right to vote

·               Right to contest in election

·               Right to hold public office

·               Right to petition the government and criticize public policy

Political equality guarantees the enjoyment of similar political rights to all citizens. Universal adult franchise is a means to this end. Political equality is actually the test on the experiments of democracy. It is also believed that political equality in itself is not adequate to disperse political power, it also needs socio-economic equality to achieve political equality.

(iv) Economic Equality

Economic equality is justifiable only when all people have reasonable opportunities to develop themselves fully. Economic equality is meaningful only when there is an adequate scope for employment, reasonable wages, adequate leisure and equal share in the management of economic concern. Professor Laski explains economic equality, “Political equality is, therefore, never real unless it is accompanied with virtual economic liberty; political power otherwise is bound to be the hand-maid of economic power”.

Economic equality here means the provision of equal opportunities to all so that they may be able to make their economy progress. Ideologically this is possible in Socialism and not in Capitalism.

(v) Equality of opportunity and education

Equality of opportunity and education means, all the citizens should be given equal and similar opportunities by the state. All the citizens should have similar chances to receive education and equal opportunities be given to develop their personality. Social inequalities such as race, caste, religion, language, rich, poor and gender based discrimination should be eradicated. In India, constitution provides provisions for equal opportunities and equal education.

Relation between Liberty and Equality

There is no value of liberty in the absence of equality. They are understood from different perspectives by political thinkers such as Lord Acton , De Tocqueville and Harold . J.Laski. Lord Acton and Alexis De Tocqueville were the ardent advocates of liberty. They were of the opinion that where there is liberty, there is no equality and vice versa. “The passion for equality made vain the hope for liberty.” - Lord Acton Professor H.J. Laski believed that liberty and equality should go together. If an individual is given unrestrained liberty to do whatever he likes, he may cause harm to others. Unrestrained liberty will bring only chaos in the society. In the nineteenth century, the Individualists wrongly interpreted the term Liberty. They did not attach any importance to economic equality and laid stresses on Laissez Faire to be adopted by the government said Laski .

Professor H.J. Laski in his remark said that ‘Where there are rich and poor, educated and uneducated, we always find a relation of master and servant’.

Laissez faire is an economic system in which transaction between private parties are free from government intervention such as regulation, privileges, tariffs and subsidies.

Adam Smith was the ardent supporter of the view that the Individualists maintained that there should be a free competition between the capitalists and labor leaders. They did not want the government to involve in the economic matters. Formula of Demand and Supply was adopted. It was expected that the economic difficulties will be removed by this formula, but resulted in dangerous consequences in Europe.

The capitalists exploited the opportunity to the core and as a result of it, the gap between rich poor got wider. The labor class was worst affected and the reaction against individualism resulted in the dawn of Socialism. Socialism rose to condemn and refute the principles of Individualism. The transition made clear that Liberty is meaningless in the absence of economic equality.

Individualism is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.

Socialism is a political and economic theory the advocates the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Economic equality is essential for the existence of political freedom. Otherwise it will be a capitalist democracy in which the laborers will have right to vote but they will not get their purpose served. Hence liberty is possible only in socialistic democracy where liberty and equality go together. There is only one solution to liberty. It lies in equality. Thus liberty and equality are complimentary to each other said Pollard.

Problems with Equality

·               Variety of meanings: equal treatment, equal outcomes, equal opportunities (and lots of shades of meaning within these broad categories)

·               Conflicts between each type: equal treatment prevents equal outcomes; equal outcomes violates equal treatment.

·               Equal opportunities conceptually flawed by problem of regression: is education and training an outcomes or an opportunity? Is an entry level job an outcome or an opportunity?

·               Equal treatment reinforces difference in opportunities and lacks a theory of what should count as a relevant difference and irrelevant differences eg obesity.

·               Equal outcomes are not in fact generally desired as a goal: fairness rather than egalitarianism is the model of social justice being sought. Equality is an aspect of fairness, but also inequality is desired on the ground of fairness to reward ‘merit’ and to accommodate to choose a way of life.

How Equality can be promoted

The difference as we understood between liberals and socialist lead us to the desirable way of achieving the goal of equality. The wide debate on the means of promoting equality may lead us to few methods. They are,

·               Establishing formal equality

·               Equality through Differential Treatment

·               Affirmative action

Perspectives of various Ideologies on Equality by Andrew Heywood

Liberals believe that people are ‘born’ equal in the sense that they are of equal moral worth. This implies formal equality, notably Legal and political equality of opportunity, but social equality is likely to be purchased at the expense of freedom and through the penalizing of tablet. Nevertheless, whereas classical liberals emphasize the need for strict meritocracy and economic incentives, modern liberals have argued that genuine equal opportunities require relative social equality.

Conservatives have traditionally viewed society as natural hierarchical and have thus dismissed equality as an abstract and unachievable goal. Nevertheless, the new right evinces a strong industrialist belief in equality of opportunity while emphasizing the economic benefits of material inequality.  

Socialist regards equality as a fundamental value and in particular, endorse social equality. Despite shifts within social democracy towards a liberal belief of opportunity, social equality, whether in its relative (social democratic) or absolute (communist) sense, has been seen as essential to ensuring social cohesion and fraternity, establishing justice or equity and enlarging freedom in a positive sense.

Anarchists place a particular stress upon political equality, understood as an equality and absolute right to personal autonomy, implying that all forms of political inequality amount to oppression.

Anarcho-communists believe in absolute social equality achieved through the collective ownership of productive wealth.

Fascists believe that humankind is marked by racial inequality, both between leaders and followers and between the various nations or race of the world. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the nation or race implies that all members are equal, at least in terms of their core identity.

Feminists take equality to mean sexual equality, in the sense of equal rights and equal opportunities (liberal feminism) or equal social, economic power (social feminism?) irrespective of gender. However, some radical feminists argued that the demand for equality may simply lead to women being ‘male-identified’.

Ecologist advance the notion of bio centric equality, which emphasizes that all life forms have an equal right to ‘live and blossom’. Conventional notions of equality are therefore seen as anthropocentric, in that they exclude the interest of all organisms and entities other than humankind.

Heywood, Andrew. (2004) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, 4th ed. New York: Macmillan.

Ways of establishing formal equality.

Social, economic and political inequalities all over the world have been protected by customs and legal systems that prohibited some sections of society from enjoying certain kinds of opportunities and rewards. Poor were denied of right to vote. Women were not allowed to be a carrier oriented women in some part of the world. The caste system in india prevented people from the lower castes from doing anything except manual labour. In some countries only some families can occupy important positions. Equality cannot be achieved unless these privileges are stalled.

For ages these systems have the sanction of law, hence for achieving equality government intervention is needed by means of law. Our constitution as a fundamental or supreme law of the land does it. The constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Our constitution also abolishes untouchability. Most of the modern states and democratic governments have incorporated in their constitution the principle of equality.

Equality in Indian Constitution

The concept of equality in indian constitution.

The Indian constitution under article 14 provides for equality before law or the equal protection of laws to all persons. This is a statement of formal equality and gives meaning to what preamble seeks to ensure in terms of ‘equality of status and of opportunity’. This also means that laws of the land will apply to all equally and there should not be discrimination on grounds of birth, caste, color, gender, language, race, religion, etc. in fact article 15 of the constitution substantiates article 14 further by prohibiting any such discrimination.

Equality before law and equal protection of law have been further strengthened in the Indian constitution under article 21. It ensures that ‘No Person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This means that a reasonable fair and just procedure should be followed for depriving a person of his personal liberty and life. It admits no arbitrariness, discriminatory procedure or unequal treatment for different individuals’.

Right to Equality (Article 14-18)

v    Equality before law (Article 14)

v    Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion (Article 15)

v    Equality of opportunity in matters of public employments(Article 16)

v    Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)

v    Abolition of titles (Article 18)

How Equality can be achieved through differential treatment?

It is necessary sometime to treat people differently in order to ensure that they can enjoy equal rights. Certain differences may have to be taken into account for this  need.  

Some special consideration for the disabled and protection for women employees especially in the corporate and IT industries when they travel amidst work in the night are provided. These acts should not be treated as an infringement of equality but an enhancement of equality. Similarly some of the policies are needed to overcome the hindrances of equality by the government. For example, India follows the principle of reservation and other countries follow affirmative action.

Affirmative action Perception of Affirmative action

Affirmative action implies that it is not sufficient to establish formal equality by law. In order to eliminate deep rooted inequalities, some positive measures are necessary and such positive measures could minimize and eliminate slowly the entrenched forms of social inequalities. Most of the policies of affirmative action are thus designed to correct the cumulative effect of past inequalities. In our country we have adopted a policy of quotas or reserved seats in education and jobs to provide equality of opportunity to deprived groups, and this has been the subject of considerable debate and disagreement.

Affirmative Action Definition

A policy or program providing advantage for people of a minority group who are seen to have traditionally been discriminated against, with the aim of creating a more egalitarian society through preferential access to education, employment, health care, social welfare, etc

The policy has been defended on the grounds that certain groups have been victims of social prejudice and discrimination in the form of exclusion and segregation. Therefore in the interest of creating an egalitarian and just society they need to be given special protection and help. However these measures of affirmative actions are time bound and temporary. It is expected that these special consideration will enable these communities to overcome existing disadvantages with others on equal terms.

The critics of positive discrimination contend that the provision of reservation and quota arbitrarily denies  the rights of other sections right to equal treatment. They think that reservations are of reverse discrimination where the principle of equality remained questioned. Equality is meant for treating all equals instead it creates a distinction among individuals on the basis of caste and racial prejudices. Hence this theorist wants to do away with social distinctions that divide society. Whatever the debate may be the fact is health and education for rural and slum children are glaringly deprived while comparing with the children in elite schools.

These students face hurdles in gaining access to special coaching and fees for professional courses may also be high. Hence they cannot compete on equal terms with the more privileged sections. We all know that such social and economic inequalities of this kind remain as hinder to equal opportunities. Theorists of today acknowledge this but what they contest is not the goal of equal opportunity but the policies that the state should pursue to achieve the goal of equality.

Economic Inequality and Arab Uprising

Issues like illness, hunger and thirst are often both cause and consequences. The cause of poverty are often related: one problem causes other. For example lack of safe clean water causes bad sanitation, which causes disease and disease can result in inability to work, which leads to poverty, hunger and so on.

Poverty is an issue that can threaten the stab ility of the country. For example, the Jasmine Revolution takes the authoritarian rulers in Tunisia by surprise and triggers anti-government protests across the Arab world. The 29-day-long struggle ended Ben Ali’s 23- year rule. The self-immolation by Mohammad Bouazizi, an unemployed man who was harassed by the police in the Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid on December 17, 2010 was the spark the ignited the Arab street. It first started the “Jasmine “Revolution (Jasmine is Tunisia’s national flower). The residents of the sleepy town, who were already angry about routine police brutality and the lack of economic opportunities, took to the streets spontaneously with “a rock in one hand and a cellphone” in the other…

A great wave of anger, frustration, defiance and democratic demand is sweeping across the Arab world. The upsurge in Arab world is not simply about democracy versus dictatorship. It is also a revolt against a manifestly unjust economic order.

Related Topics

Privacy Policy , Terms and Conditions , DMCA Policy and Compliant

Copyright © 2018-2024 BrainKart.com; All Rights Reserved. Developed by Therithal info, Chennai.

• भाषा : हिंदी
• Classroom Courses
• Our Selections
• Student Login
• About NEXT IAS
• Director’s Desk
• Advisory Panel
• Faculty Panel
• General Studies Courses
• Optional Courses
• Interview Guidance Program
• Postal Courses
• Test Series
• Current Affairs
• Student Portal

• Pre Cum Mains Foundation Courses
• GS + CSAT Pre cum Main Foundation Course
• GS Pre cum Main Foundation Course
• GS + CSAT + Optional
• GS + Optional
• Prelims Courses
• Current Affairs Course for CSE 2025
• CSAT Course
• Current Affairs for Prelims (CAP)-2024
• Mains Courses
• Mains Advance Course (MAC)
• Essay Course Cum Test Series
• First Step — NCERT Based Course
• Optional Foundation Courses
• Mathematics
• Anthropology
• Political Science and International Relations (PSIR)
• Optional Advance Courses (Optional Through Questions)
• Civil Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Interview Guidance Programme / Personality Test Training Program
• GS + CSAT Postal Courses
• Current Affairs Magazine – Annual Subscription
• GS+CSAT Postal Study Course
• First Step Postal Course
• Postal Study Course for Optional Subjects
• Prelims Test Series for CSE 2024 (Offline/Online)
• General Studies
• GS Mains Test Series for CSE 2024
• Mains Test Series (Optional)
• Paarth PSIR
• PSIR Answer Writing Program
• PSIR PRO Plus Test Series
• Mathematics Year Long Test Series (MYTS) 2024
• Indian Economic Services
• Anubhav (All India Open Mock Test)
• Prelims (GS + CSAT)
• Headlines of the Day
• Daily Current Affairs
• Editorial Analysis
• Monthly MCQ Compilation
• Monthly Current Affairs Magazine
• Previous Year Papers
• Down to Earth
• Kurukshetra
• Union Budget
• Economic Survey
• NIOS Study Material

Right to Equality (Article 14 to 18): Meaning, Provisions & Significance

The Right to Equality , enshrined as a fundamental right in the Indian Constitution, plays a crucial role in building a just and equitable society. The provisions under this right collectively form the bedrock upon which the edifice of Indian democracy is built. This article of NEXT IAS delves into the nuances of provisions related to the Right to Equality, their meaning, significance, exceptions, and more.

Meaning of Right to Equality

The Right to Equality in the Indian Constitution is a fundamental human right that signifies that all people should be treated equally and without discrimination. This principle is foundational to human rights law and is enshrined in various international treaties and national constitutions around the world. The essence of this right is to ensure that no individual or group is denied societal opportunities or privileges that are available to others based on arbitrary criteria such as race, gender, age, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or any other status.

Right to Equality in India

The Right to Equality is a Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of India. The detailed provisions related to the Right to Equality contained in Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution form the cornerstone of justice and fairness in society. Together they ensure that everyone is treated equally before the law, given equal opportunities in certain matters, and is not discriminated against on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, etc.

Right to Equality: Provisions Under the Indian Constitution

Equality before law and equal protection of laws (article 14).

• This provision mandates that the State shall not deny to any person Equality before the Law or the Equal Protection of the Laws within the territory of India.
• This right is extended to citizens, foreigners as well as legal persons such as companies.

Equality before Law

• the absence of any special privileges in favor of any person,
• the equal subjection of all persons to the ordinary law of the land,
• no person is above the law.

Equal Protection of Laws

• equality of treatment under equal circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed by the laws,
• the similar application of the same laws to all persons who are similarly situated,
• the like should be treated alike without any discrimination.
• A simple comparison of the concepts of ‘Equality before Law’ and ‘Equal Protection of Laws’ tells that the former is a negative concept , while the latter is a positive concept. However, they both align in their common aim to establish equality of legal status, opportunity, and justice.

Rule of Law

• Absence of arbitrary power i.e. no man can be punished except for a breach of law.
• Equality before law i.e. equal subjection of all citizens to the laws of the land.
• The primacy of the rights of the individual i.e. constitution is the result of the rights of the individual as defined and enforced by the courts of law, rather than the constitution being the source of the individual rights.
• The concept of ‘ Equality before Law ’ is an element of the concept of ‘Rule of Law’.
• In the case of the Indian system, only the 1st and 2nd elements of the ‘Rule of Law’ are applicable, and not the 3rd one. This is because, in India, the constitution is the source of the individual rights.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the ‘Rule of Law’ as embodied in Article 14 is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution , and hence cannot be destroyed by a constitutional amendment.

Exceptions to Equality

The rule of equality before the law has certain exceptions. These exceptions are mentioned below:

• As ruled by the Supreme Court, while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it permits the reasonable classification of persons, objects, and transactions by law. However, the classification should not be arbitrary, artificial, or evasive.
• As per Article 361 , the President of India and the Governor of States enjoy certain immunities.
• As per Article 361-A , no person shall be liable for any proceedings in any court for publication of a true report of any proceedings of Parliament or State Legislature.
• Article 105 provides that no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given in Parliament or any committee thereof. Article 194 makes a similar provision for members of the State Legislature.
• Article 31-C provides that laws made by the state for implementing DPSPs contained in Article 39 (b) and (c) cannot be challenged on the grounds of being violative of Article 14.
• Immunity to foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, and diplomats from criminal and civil proceedings.
• UNO and its agencies also enjoy diplomatic immunity from certain proceedings.

Prohibition of Discrimination on Certain Grounds (Article 15)

• The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
• No citizen shall be subjected to any disability, liability, restriction, or condition on grounds only of religion, race, case, sex, or place of birth w.r.t. access to public places.
• The first provision prohibits discrimination only by the state , while the second provision prohibits discrimination both by the state and private individuals.
• The crucial term here is ‘only’, which connotes that discrimination on grounds other than those mentioned in the provisions is not prohibited.
• The state is authorized to enact special provisions for the benefit of women and children, such as reserving seats in local bodies or providing free education for children.
• The state is empowered to enact special measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes such as seat reservations or fee concessions in public educational institutions.
• The state has the authority to enact special measures for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, scheduled castes, or scheduled tribes in matters of admission to educational institutions, including private ones, whether aided or unaided by the state, excluding minority educational institutions.
• The state is empowered to enact special measures for the advancement of economically weaker sections of society. Additionally, the state may reserve up to 10% of seats for such sections in educational institutions, excluding minority educational institutions. A. This reservation is in addition to existing reservations and is determined based on family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage, as notified by the state.

Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment (Article 16)

• This provision provides for equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment or appointment to any office under the State.
• The citizens cannot be discriminated against or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
• Parliament may prescribe residence as a condition for certain employment positions under the State, Union Territory, Local Authority, or other authority.
• The State can provide for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of the backward classes that are inadequately represented in the state services.
• A law can provide that certain religious institutions or denominations may require officeholders to belong to a particular religion or denomination.
• The state can reserve up to 10% of appointments for economically weaker sections, in addition to existing reservations, based on criteria such as family income or other indicators of economic disadvantage. A. This reservation has been added by the 103rd Amendment Act of 2019.

Abolition of Untouchability (Article 17)

• This provision has abolished ‘untouchability’ and forbids its practice in any form.
• Any act enforcing disability based on untouchability shall be deemed as an offense punishable by law.
• Untouchability refers to social disabilities imposed on certain classes of persons because of their birth in certain castes. Hence, it does not cover the social boycott of a few individuals or their exclusions from religious services, etc.
• However, the term ‘untouchability’ has not been defined in the Constitution or the Protection of Civil Rights Act of 1955 (the act enacted to enforce this provision).

Abolition of Titles ( Article 18)

• It prohibits the state from granting any title, except for military or academic distinctions, to any individual, whether a citizen or a foreigner.
• It prohibits Indian citizens from accepting titles from any foreign state.
• A foreigner holding any office of profit or trust under the state cannot accept titles from any foreign state without the President’s consent.
• Neither citizens nor foreigners holding any office of profit or trust under the State are allowed to accept any gift, salary, or position from or under any foreign state without the President’s consent.
• Hereditary titles of nobility e.g. Maharaja, Deewan, etc which were conferred by colonial states are banned by this Article.
• National Awards e.g. Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan, and Padma Sri are not banned by this Article. However, they should not be used as suffixes or prefixes to the names of awardees. Otherwise, they should forfeit the awards.

Significance of Right to Equality

The right to equality holds immense significance as it serves as the foundation for a just and inclusive society. Its importance lies in several key aspects:

• Fairness and Justice – It ensures that all individuals are treated equally under the law, irrespective of their background, race, religion, caste, gender, or economic status. This fosters a sense of fairness and justice in society.
• Non-Discrimination – This right prohibits discrimination in all spheres of life, including employment, education, housing, and public services. It creates a level playing field for everyone, regardless of their differences.
• Inclusivity – This right promotes inclusivity by recognizing the dignity and worth of every individual. It encourages respect for diversity and the participation of all members of society in civic and political life.
• Social Cohesion – This right helps in building social cohesion by reducing social tensions and disparities. When individuals feel that they are treated fairly and have equal opportunities, it fosters a sense of belonging and unity within society.
• Human Rights – This is a fundamental human right enshrined in various international and national legal instruments. Protecting this right is essential for upholding the broader framework of human rights and dignity.

In conclusion, equality lies at the heart of the Indian Constitution, serving as the cornerstone of justice, fairness, and social cohesion. This principle of equality ensures that all individuals are treated fairly before the law, without any unreasonable discrimination. By upholding this fundamental right, India strives to build a society where every citizen has equal opportunities and rights, fostering inclusivity and empowering each individual to contribute to the nation’s progress and prosperity.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Directive principles of state policy (dpsps), national commission for scheduled tribes (ncst), national commission for scheduled castes (ncsc), devices of parliamentary proceedings: meaning, types, applications & importance, doctrine of basic structure: meaning, evolution, features, significance & criticism, amendment of the constitution: meaning, types, procedure & limitations, leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Featured Post

• He further suggested that there is no need to give or mention the list of different kinds of public places.
• He connoted the word “public place” in a wide sense.
• He admitted that in the past, discrimination was done with certain communities and castes regarding their entry at different public places.
• He admitted that the Constitution of India is based on the principle of democratic equality. So, he considered useless to mention the names of each and every public place in the said Article.
• He further admitted that due to the introduction of certain exceptions in the said Article, there are chances of the flourishing of denominational, sectarian, and communal institutions. He feared that it may finish the real democracy.
• He further specifically insisted that in order to stop sectarian or denominational exclusiveness, schools, hospitals, asylums, etc. shall not be reserved for any reason and for any given sect or community.
• All public places must be made open and accessible to all citizens of the country. This shows that he wanted to promote perfect and real equality among the citizens of India.
• He then adhered that opening up of any institution that benefits only a given community or given members or fund providers, in reality, lacks civic sense. According to him such a concept or idea is against the equality of citizenship.
• He told that the Constitution of India has expressively made clear that all citizens of India are equal. For this purpose, he gave an example that – if any institution is founded and maintained exclusively by any particular person and at the same time, it receives any public recognition, protection, safeguards, etc. from any public authority then such institutions are covered under the said article.
• He was of the view that there shall not be any sort of vested interest in application as well as in the interpretation of the said article. The said amendment was later on negatived.

Mr. H.V. Kamath , proposed to substitute the words “State Funds” for the “revenues of the state”. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar agreed with it.

Read more Constituent Assembly debates in the linked article.

Thereafter, Mr. Mohammad Tahir proposed, through an amendment that, for the words “state or dedicated to the use of the general public”, the words “state or any legal authority or dedicated to the use of the general public and any contravention of this provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with the law” be substituted.

• He proposed so, for the complete realization of equality of human beings. He told so because of the miserable condition of many scheduled castes and low caste groups in India. The said amendment was adopted.

For the debate regarding the use of the words “place of” before the word “birth”, Mr. Raj Bahadur was of the view that it gives restricted meaning to the entire amendment.

• He was of the opinion that the word “birth” is not only applied to “residence‟ but also to “descent”.
• According to him if the word “descent” is only taken into consideration then it may lead to more discriminations in the future.
• He wanted to remove all sorts of discrimination through the Constitution.
• He wished that not only the distinction regarding religion, caste, sex, etc. be abolished but discrimination based on the basis of family, descent, etc. must be abolished through the Constitution.
• He wished that not only distinctions should be removed but all possibilities of chances of discrimination, favouritism or nepotism on the basis of birth or descent be removed.

Shri S. Nagappa was of the opinion that it is necessary for the population of India to be politically free as well as socially free.

• According to him, freedom means political, social and economic freedom.
• He wished that social rights must be given to a particular community under the present article.
• He admitted that obtaining social rights are more expansive and explanatory.
• He wanted to focus on the issue of the economic evaluation of the downtrodden classes of Indians.
• He admitted that “Most of our courts are courts of law and not justice.”
• He meant that if economic rights are given to downtrodden people then they need not have to approach courts frequently for accessing justice.

Sardar Bhopinder Singh Man suggested that “at the time of deciding about the fundamental rights , it would be incomplete if places of worship are not included in the list of such rights.”

• According to him places of worship must be kept open for all and such places must be in the custody of ultimate custodians or pujaris. He wanted that the barriers of religion must be removed permanently.

The framers of the Indian Constitution aimed at non-discrimination by the state against any citizen on grounds of race, religion, caste, sex or any of them. The said article is framed for the citizens of India. The protection of the said article is given only to the citizens. They have specifically mentioned that there must be no chances of flourishment of denominational, sectarian and communal institutions. They wanted the flourishment of real democracy. They wanted that any social institution founded by any particular community must benefit the entire society and not only the particular community. In other words, the beneficiary of the social institutions must be the society at large.

Moreover, they wanted to bring complete equality for women and children. For this, they wanted that nothing should prevent the state from making any special provisions for women and children. They wanted to promote and implement the concept of equal citizenship. They didn’t want to create a special class of scheduled castes and backward tribes. They covered all under the one head i.e. citizen. They wanted the policy of the state to be non-discriminatory. They have extended the scope of the said article by non-discrimination policy. The said policy is to be adopted by hotels, dharmasalas, musafirkhanas whether managed or not managed by public funds. The word public used in the said article is used in a generic sense i.e. it is restricted only to citizens of India. They have treated all public places uniformly including hospitals, educational institutions, etc. They wanted no special status to be accorded to any person including royal families, dynasties, rich persons, etc. They wanted the non-existence of financial inequality, social inequality, economic inequality and religious inequality. They also intended for equality before the law.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution

Meaning of the term ‘equality’ .

Equality is regarded as the basis of Democracy. The concept of equality is also closely associated with the theory of natural rights. The beginning of the principle of equality may be traced to the theory of natural equality because it was said by Thomas Jefferson “all men are born equal and it is the man himself who creates differences between individuals.” Equality implies the treatment and opportunities of all people alike. Equality presumes that there must not be any discrimination when it comes to opportunities. Therefore, the Right to Equality is essential for all individuals for their development.  However, equality is a broad term and contains many exceptions in our Constitution.

Right to Equality under the Indian Constitution [1] –

Article 14-18 of the Constitution of India provides the Right to Equality. It is one of the six fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution of India.

“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

Prima facie, the term ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’ may look similar, but they are different. Equality before the law is a negative concept implying the absence of any special privilege based on birth, creed, colour, sex, or the like whereas, equal protection of laws is a more positive concept implying the right of treatment in similar situations.

Article 15 

Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

Sub-clause (1) says that the State shall not discriminate on the above-mentioned grounds.

Sub-clause (2) says that no citizen on the above-mentioned grounds is subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regards to public places such as restaurants, shops, etc.

Sub-clause (3) empowers the State to make provisions for women and children.

Sub-clause (4) empowers the State to make special provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Sub-clause (5) was inserted by the 93rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2005 and it allows reservation for socially and educationally backward classes in State or State-aided educational institutions subject to the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from OBCs.

Article 16 –

Article 16 talks about equality of opportunities in matters of public employment.

Sub-clause (1) says that there must be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The term “in matters relating to employment or appointment” denotes all matters in relation to employment both prior and after the employment which is incidental to the employment and form a part of the T&Cs of the employment. The crux of equality of opportunity is not just the maintenance of legal equality but on the presence of abilities and opportunity of excellence in each cadre or grade. Thus, all persons situated similarly must be treated in a like manner.

Sub-clause (2) says that no citizen, on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth be ineligible for any office under the State. This provision only applies to public employment.

In K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. the State of Karnataka [2] , the Supreme Court held that reservation in favour of backward classes must be based on the mean test. It further suggested that the policy of reservation should be reviewed after every five years and the class reaches a level wherein they do not require a reservation, its name must be deleted from that list.

Sub-clause (3) empowers the Parliament to make laws regarding a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office. In M.R. Balaji v. Mysore [3] , the apex court had put a 50% cap on reservations in all states except Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan.

Sub-clause (4) empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of a backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State are not represented in the services under the State.  Reservation under Article 16(4) included promotions which were overruled by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [4] .

The judgment had a very significant impact on Article 16(4). It held –

• Backwardness under Article 16(4) is mainly social. It need not be social or educational.
• For reservation under Article 16(4), the limit cannot exceed 50%.
• Identification of a class as “backward classes” is subject to judicial review.

Article 16(4) confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation if the need is but no constitutional right upon the members of the backward classes to claim the same. [5]

Article 17 –

Article 17 abolishes the evil practice of untouchability. Untouchability was an evil practice carried out on members of the lowest rungs of the society such as Dalits. Parliament is also authorized to make laws prescribing punishment for the same.

Article 18 – 

‘Title’ is something that goes along with one’s name. For example, during the British rule in India, titles such as Lord, Lady, King, Queen were used. But, this has been done away with by the Constitution of India. This prohibition operates only against the State, and it does not prohibit public institutions to award titles. The State also isn’t debarred from awarding titles for say, excellence in some field. For example, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan and Padma Bhushan are titles awarded by the Government, which are legal.

CONCLUSION – 

Right to Equality is a necessity for every individual living in any democratic set-up. In countries such as India, right to equality is essential due to the significant economic, social and political disparities. Some have benefitted from the system of reservation while a specific section of the society doesn’t accept reservation in today’s time. Barring reservation, equality attempts to put everyone on a level playing field, which is a man’s natural right. Nobody is born equal physically or mentally, and some are very good and some not so good. One can overcome these if equality is there in society. To achieve equality in the practical sense, one has to do away with discrimination.

[1] Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the constitution of India (2015).

[2] AIR 1985 S.C. 1495

[3] AIR 1963 SC 649

[4] AIR 1993 SC 477

[5] S.Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu, AIR 2005 SC 1038

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today       Request a Demo

Legodesk - Case Tracking

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• UPSC History Notes
• UPSC Geography Notes
• UPSC Polity Notes
• UPSC Ethics Notes
• UPSC Economics Notes
• UPSC Science and Technology Notes
• UPSC Govt. Schemes Notes
• UPSC eligibility-criteria
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Exam Pattern
• UPSC Admit Card
• UPSC Optional Subject
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• UPSC Main Exam Pattern
• UPSC prelims-2024-exam-pattern

• Difference Between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy
• National Commission For Scheduled Castes
• Article-19 and Social Media Regulation
• Communism vs Fascism
• Five Years Plan From 1951-1974
• Evolution of Concept of Basic Structure
• Right to Freedom of Religion in India (Articles 25-28)
• The Constituent Assembly of India: Features & its Committees
• Ninth Schedule of the Indian Constitution
• Difference Between Parliamentary and Presidential Form of Government
• An Analysis of 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA 1976)
• National Commission For Scheduled Tribes
• Special Provisions for Some States
• Parliamentary Committees - Types and Roles
• National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA)
• Fundamental Rights of Indian Citizens
• Federal Features of Indian Constitution - Federalism in India
• What is Rule of Law?
• Main Objective of Distribution of Powers Between Centre and States

Right to Equality – Article 14 to 18 of Indian Constitution

The Right to Equality of the Indian Consitution guarantees equal treatment for everyone before the law and prevents discrimination of any kind. It is one of the six fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution Equality Rights .

In this article, you will learn all about Equality before Law and the related Constitutional Equality India provisions from the UPSC exam point of view.

Right to Equality Definition

Right to Equality in Indian Constitution is defined as,

“The government will not decline to any person in India equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. It means that the laws apply in the same manner to all, regardless of a person’s status.”

It is assumed as one of the basic features in the Indian Constitution Equality Rights .

Different Types of Equality

Here are different types of equality based on law in Indian Constitution Equality Rights:

• Social Equality
• Civil Equality
• Economic Equality
• Natural Equality
• Political Equality
• Legal Equality

Right to Equality Articles

Following are the articles associated with the Right to Equality in the Indian Constitution :

Let’s learn about these articles in detail.

Right to Equality Article 14

It guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India to all persons.

• Equality and Non-Discrimination : Ensures all citizens are treated equally before the law, prohibiting any discrimination.
• Two Key Concepts : Incorporates the British concept of ‘equality before the law’ and the American concept of ‘equal protection of the laws’.
• Rule of Law : Emphasizes the supremacy of law and absence of arbitrary power, as seen in the Supreme Court ruling in Ashutosh Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002.

Right to Equality Article 15

It prohibits discrimination by the state against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

• No Discrimination by the State : Prohibits discrimination by the state on grounds of caste, creed, religion, or sex.
• Equal Application of Laws : Mandates that the same laws apply to all in similar circumstances.
• Exceptions and Special Provisions : Allows special provisions for women, children, and socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs.

Right to Equality Article 16

It ensures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any position under the State.

• Equal Opportunity in Employment : Guarantees equal employment opportunities for all, regardless of class, religion, or caste.
• Prohibition of Discrimination in Salary : Ensures equal pay for equal work.
• Reservation in State Services : Permits the state to reserve appointments or posts for economically weaker sections and backward classes not adequately represented in state services.

Right to Equality Article 17

It abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.

• Outlawing Untouchability : Declares the practice of untouchability illegal and prohibits discrimination based on untouchability.

Right to Equality Article 18

It prohibits the State from conferring any titles other than military or academic distinctions, and citizens of India cannot accept titles from any foreign state.

• Prohibition of State Titles : Restricts the state from conferring titles, except academic or military ones.
• Restriction on Foreign Titles : Prohibits Indian citizens from accepting titles from foreign states.
• Abolition of British Empire Awards : Ends awards from the British Empire, while awards like Padma Shri, Padma Bhushan, and Bharat Ratna are not included in this prohibition.

Read More :

• Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution

Example of Right to Equality

Here’s a brief overview for Brown v. Board of Education:

Brown v. Board of Education: A Landmark Case in Equality Rights

• Background : Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in the United States.
• Significance : The Court’s decision declared that state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools were unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools were otherwise equal in quality.
• Relation to Right to Equality : This case directly challenged the doctrine of “separate but equal” established in Plessy v. Ferguson and became a pivotal moment in the civil rights movement. It underscores the principle that equality is not just about providing the same resources or opportunities, but also about ensuring that these opportunities are free from discrimination and prejudice.

Classification of Right to Equality

Article 14 gives everyone in India the right to be treated equally by the law. It says that not everyone can be treated the same way because people are different. This means the law doesn’t have to work exactly the same for every person.

• For example, in the case of Virendra Krishna Mishra v. Union of India, the Court said that equality is not lost if the classification makes sense.
• In State v. Shri Ambika Mills, it was said that people in similar situations should be treated similarly.
• The reason for grouping people should be clear and linked to the law’s goal.
• In another case, E.P.Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu , the Court expanded on what equality means.
• It introduced the idea that equality is about fairness and justice, not just about being the same.
• Equality is seen as flexible, with many sides and not stuck in one definition.
• Landmark Legal Cases in India
• Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
• Securing the Fundamental Rights
• Fundamental Rights and Protection of Freedom
• Fundamental Rights of India (Articles 12-35)
• Limitations of Fundamental Rights
• Why Fundamental Rights are called Magna Carta?
• Fundamental Duties – Article 51A for UPSC

FAQs on Right to Equality

What is right to equality of indian constitution.

The Right to Equality ensures equal treatment under the law and forbids discrimination, promoting fairness for all citizens. It comes under the Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution.

How Many Articles are there in Right to Equality?

The Right to Equality in the Indian Constitution is covered under Articles 14 to 18. This means there are 5 articles dedicated to the Right to Equality.

What are the Main Features of Right to Equality ?

The main features of the Right to Equality include equal protection under the law, prohibition of discrimination, equality in employment opportunities, abolition of untouchability, and prohibition of state-conferred titles.

Is equality a basic human right according to the Indian Constitution?

Yes, equality is a fundamental human right. Articles 14 to 18 of the Indian Constitution specifically focus on the right to equality and non-discrimination for all citizens.

What is Article 14 of Indian Constitution?

Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within India. It prohibits any form of discrimination and guarantees that all individuals are treated equally by the legal system.

What is Article 15 of Indian Constitution?

Article 15 prohibits the state from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. It ensures equal treatment for all citizens in similar circumstances.

What is Article 16 of Indian Constitution?

Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. It states that no citizen shall be discriminated against in employment matters on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.

What is Article 17 of Indian Constitution?

Article 17 abolishes “untouchability” and forbids its practice in any form. It is a significant step towards social reform, aiming to eradicate caste-based discrimination.

What is Article 18 of Indian Constitution?

Article 18 abolishes all titles that create distinctions between citizens. It prohibits the state from conferring any titles, except military and academic distinctions, and prevents Indian citizens from accepting titles from foreign states.

Please Login to comment...

• Political Science
• anupamranu123
• ananyasaikiaintern
• shagunsy7xh
• andrewin9qbr
• harshghqs60
• ChatGPT Gets a Voice: Introducing the New Read Aloud Feature
• Meta Quest+ is Now Like Game Pass For Your VR Headset
• MLB World Series Champions - Major League Baseball Winners List
• IIT Madras E-Cell to Host 100 Innovative Startups at E-Summit 2024 Startup Expo
• Dev Scripter 2024 - Biggest Technical Writing Event By GeeksforGeeks

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?