"The correct way of ensuring algorithmic fairness is X" where X is something they already happened to work on.
In various papers X could be robust optimization, differential privacy, causal inference, adversarial training, etc. The papers are mostly good, actually, but it's sort of putting the cart before the horse.
I think there might be legitimate value in having a bunch of lawyers, sociologists, and philosophers set a target more-or-less in ignorance, and let the people on the technical side try to hit it.
Of course even better would be interdisciplinary collaboration but that's hard, there aren't many incentives in its favor (where do you publish? any given venue is worthless to half of the authors). and it requires humility on the part of everyone involved.