“We Can’t Make Exceptions” Is How Inequality Is Preserved

“We can’t make exceptions.”

It’s said firmly.
Almost proudly.

And it’s usually delivered right when fairness would be inconvenient.

The Policy Shield

This phrase appears when someone asks for something reasonable.

A pay adjustment.
A role correction.
Flexibility that acknowledges reality.

Instead of engaging with the request, leadership hides behind policy.

Not because the policy is sacred.
But because it’s useful.

Policies end conversations without addressing context.

Rules With Selective Memory

Watch closely who the rules apply to.

Exceptions are somehow made for:

• urgent hires
• leadership roles
• “business critical” situations

But when it comes to individuals asking for fairness?

Suddenly, consistency matters.

“We can’t set a precedent.”

As if the precedent wasn’t already set — just quietly, for other people.

Consistency Over Justice

Policies are meant to create fairness.

But when followed blindly, they do the opposite.

They freeze inequality in place.
They reward whoever negotiated best at the start.
They punish anyone who trusted the system.

And the longer you stay, the harder it is to correct.

The Emotional Impact

Being told no because of “policy” feels final.

Not because the answer makes sense — but because it’s framed as unavoidable.

You’re not being rejected.
You’re being processed.

And that’s often worse.

When You Stop Asking

Eventually, people learn.

They stop raising issues.
They stop believing change is possible.
They stop investing emotionally.

Not out of laziness — but self-preservation.

The Reframe

Policies are tools.

They can be revised.
They can be overridden.
They can be interpreted with intent.

So when you hear “we can’t make exceptions,” ask yourself:

Is this really about fairness?

Or is it about avoiding a decision?

Because rigid rules don’t create equality.

They just make unfair systems easier to defend.