[pc86]

If you want to make meaningful change in this avenue you really can't use words like "bias" or "systemic" because anywhere from 49-51% of the population will immediately shut down upon hearing that. Someone can argue (and many do to varying levels of success) that systemic bias doesn't exist, which means this doesn't exist, which means there no problem.

However, "this AI model can decide that some subset of people, perhaps random, perhaps not, are simply not hirable for any job" makes sense to most people regardless of political bent.

[rayiner]

The problem with the term “systemic bias” is that it takes a word that’s about differential treatment and changes the subject to disparate outcomes.

For example, the article here shows disparate impact: that different percentages of applications are passed through the AI filter. But it doesn’t show differential treatment of otherwise identical applications based on race.

[nyrikki]

Capitulation is a bad counterpropaganda tactic, especially with terms that have well defined domain specific meanings.

Note that the OP uses "systemic rejection", while the paper does reference bias, it is in the precise meaning of the word.[0] And this is not targeted at the general public.

You may want to look into the 1990 GOPAC handout "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to understand why some groups would simply just weaponize any term that was substituted. Academic papers need to error on being precise, to be effective, not focused on handling the general public with kids gloves IMHO.

Edited to add, listen to Lee Atwater's 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy for even more context.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27371