As you may have read in my previous column, I explained how gymnastics uses technical terms like “aesthetic” to hide its exclusionary nature and create body hierarchies.
Businesses and organizations operate on similar principles to this. But instead of relying on feedback from coaches and judges, businesses use performance metrics, certain efficiency benchmarks and corporate jargon, which are framed as objective, rational and fair, even when they aren’t.
Many different types of discretionary practices can easily be cloaked in technical definitions of hiring filters, credentials, cultural fit and productivity measures. Each of those terms has embedded bias regarding who is considered “fit” and who is not.
The following are three methods of linguistic weaponization commonly used by organizations.
First, according to Faber et al., a variety of administrative and bureaucratic selection criteria may appear neutral but ultimately perpetuate systemic exclusion. Examples include requiring degrees obtained within the same country as the employer, favoritism toward applicants with extensive unpaid research experience and limited access to professional mentorship networks, all of which disadvantage applicants who lack financial resources or institutional support.
Businesses, though, are allowed to mask their discriminatory behavior through “plausible deniability.” This strategy prevents people of color from entering the field of professional psychology by operating as a “little-examined structural toolkit that serves to disenfranchise disempowered groups.”
Vague criteria also allow demographic characteristics, including race and gender, to be considered when making discretionary decisions. Traits like a person’s natural communication style, accent, physical appearance, age or even disability status can become criteria for hiring and promotion. For example, a manager might “plausibly” unconsciously favor employees who speak in ways that align with the dominant workplace culture, while sidelining equally capable individuals who may speak differently. In addition, events resulting from the disenfranchisement of a group are often framed as unfortunate incidents but deemed inevitable by efficiency, standards and market logic.
What is particularly insidious about this is how repeated occurrences of the same act create a sense of legitimacy. It is through the continued use of specific language in corporate reports, HR training and communications that these biased standards are established. For example, unfair practices like hiring based on personal connections, unclear promotion criteria, inconsistent enforcement of workplace rules and employees being repeatedly overlooked without clear explanations are often justified using persistent phrases like “company standards” or “professional expectations.”
Celine-Marie Pascale explains that censorship typically reflects the priorities of capitalist institutions, which are motivated more by advertisers’ interests than by those of consumers or the public. In many cases, these businesses will restrict certain discourse to promote desired narratives. Pascale argues that propaganda has always aimed to overwhelm people’s critical thinking. In today’s digital world, this idea has evolved into what is called “computational propaganda,” in which businesses use bots, algorithms and AI to target and evaluate people based on how vulnerable they seem.
Second, deliberate, repeated messaging is another tactic leveraged relentlessly. For example, consider the tobacco industry’s “tobacco strategy,” which essentially depicts how repeated messaging can normalize ideas. The industry hired PR firms, produced research articles, established journals and even created scientific societies to cast doubt on the established dangers of smoking. Through this constant reinforcement, false and misleading information began to seem credible, shaping public perception over decades.
Third, businesses normalize coercion by pointing to “efficiency” and “achievement.” They use hierarchical levels to determine value through external validation from investors, bosses and judges, rather than relying on internal evaluation methods. Corporate euphemisms like “culture fit” and “professionalism” sound aspirational and even empowering, but they reduce systemic issues to personal deficiencies. Companies, for example, expect employees to view burnout as their personal fault and to remain silent amid unfair standards to demonstrate so-called professionalism in the field.
How do we address the weaponization of language in our everyday lives?
To begin with, we can increase our awareness about the type of language we encounter in our everyday life — job advertisements, evaluation rubrics, messages — and we can point out which terms and phrases look “neutral” but have a history of being created for and used by a certain subset of the population.
Another idea is to collaborate on building shared resources. These might include creating glossaries of inclusive terms and revising rubrics to provide more equitable criteria.
It is essential to lead by example. When writing an email to someone, whether it be creating an event description to be published or providing your peers with feedback in a team meeting, you should practice using language that is inclusive and promotes collaboration and teamwork rather than ranking or personal opinion.
Michelle Belakh is a freshman double-majoring in linguistics and political science.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.