I guess "hypocrisy" is a better term. The term "double standard" suggests an unfair discrepancy in how two cases are treated, especially when this discrepancy

I guess "hypocrisy" is a better term. The term "double standard" suggests an unfair discrepancy in how two cases are treated, especially when this discrepancy is concealed and especially if the concealment is so deep that the perpetrator is self-deceived (so subtle sexism in hiring is a better example than Jew quotas for university admission or different penalties for crack and powder cocaine). An important difference from hypocrisy is that, with a double standard, the group that is judging in an unfair way is typically itself not engaging in the behavior being judged. For instance, an interviewer might have a double standard for male and female job applicants who have a certain kind of black mark on their record (or a certain kind of mark of excellence for that matter), but the interviewer is not a job applicant at all, let alone one with this kind of black mark. Another difference is that with hypocrisy the underlying behavior being judged has to be something bad, and accusing an accuser of hypocrisy is no real defense. (However, hypocrites often profess exaggerated standards of morality, and the best solution may be for everyone to just moralize less on the particular thing they are on about, so accusing an accuser of hypocrisy can be at least part of a defense.)