When was the last time you celebrated a design project that improved users’ lives—while quietly knowing the system remained problematic?
Human-Centered Design (HCD) promises to serve people, but in practice, it often serves power. Most HCD work today is funded by corporations and institutions whose goals prioritize growth, efficiency, and profit. As a result, design projects may improve user experiences while reinforcing the very systems that marginalize, surveil, and exploit. If designers do not confront this reality, they risk becoming complicit in injustice.
The Myth of Neutrality
“I’m just solving the problem I was given.” This seemingly innocent stance masks a more profound truth: every design decision reflects political, economic, and cultural values. Claiming neutrality absolves practitioners of responsibility and shields the status quo from scrutiny. As Sasha Costanza-Chock explains in Design Justice, when designers fail to question the structures within which they operate, they “encode the values of dominant groups,” perpetuating inequality even while believing they are solving problems.
Every design decision involves a value judgment. Who counts as a user? What counts as success? These questions aren’t neutral—they reflect deeper political and cultural assumptions. The personas we create, the metrics we prioritize, and the “pain points” we choose to document all shape what kinds of people and problems are deemed worthy of attention.
Who Really Benefits? Follow the Money
Ask yourself: Who defines the goals of your design projects, and who benefits? In most cases, the answer is clear. The paying client, not the end user, sets the agenda. User needs are translated into business metrics: engagement, conversion, and retention. Empathy becomes a tool for optimization, not liberation.
Consider these common scenarios:
- A financial app makes transferring money “frictionless” while obscuring predatory fee structures
- A social platform optimizes for “time spent” at the cost of users’ mental health
- An HR system streamlines hiring while encoding biases that disadvantage marginalized candidates
Ruha Benjamin’s work in Race After Technology shows how optimization can harden structural biases, making injustice more efficient and harder to detect. When we fail to question whose interests are being served, we risk making harmful systems more effective.
It’s uncomfortable to admit when our work helps systems we know are flawed. However, recognizing this discomfort is the first step toward changing how we design.
From Optimization to Liberation
If design cannot be neutral, then designers must make an active choice: to reinforce existing structures or to challenge them. What would a design practice look like if it centered liberation over-optimization?
Liberation-centered design would start by shifting power. It would treat communities not as subjects to be studied but as partners and decision-makers. It would measure success not by metrics like “time on the platform” but outcomes like increased agency, collective ownership, and systemic change.
Examples already exist:
- Creative Reaction Lab’s Equity-Centered Community Design model trains communities to identify their own needs and lead design processes
- Detroit’s Equitable Internet Initiative empowers residents to build and own their Internet infrastructure
- Participatory Action Research (PAR) projects empower marginalized groups to define problems and evaluate solutions
These approaches show that HCD can evolve—but only if practitioners are willing to change who has power in the design process.
From Complicity to Courage: Actionable Steps for Practitioners
For designers ready to move beyond complicity, here are concrete actions you can take today:
1. Reframe project goals and metrics
- Before starting a project, ask: “How might this work increase users’ agency and power?”
- Create alternative success metrics that measure empowerment, not just engagement.
- Document and share tensions between business goals and user wellbeing
2. Share decision-making power
- Allocate budget for compensating community members as co-designers, not just research participants.
- Create governance structures that give affected communities veto power over design decisions.
- Build coalitions with advocacy organizations already working on related issues
3. Make power dynamics visible
- Include transparent statements about funding sources and business incentives in your deliverables.
- Map out who benefits financially from your design solutions—and who might be harmed.
- Practice stakeholder mapping that identifies power differentials among users and decision-makers
4. Challenge efficiency as the default value
- Advocate for projects that center on human dignity and community resilience
- Calculate the long-term social costs of “efficient” solutions that externalize harm
- Build time for ethical reflection into project timelines
5. Develop collective accountability
- Form peer groups to review each other’s work through a justice lens
- Create and share case studies of projects that prioritized liberation over-optimization
- Support unionization and collective organization among design workers
The Courage to Choose
The future of Human-Centered Design depends on whether practitioners accept the gravity of this choice. Will we continue optimizing experiences within unjust systems? Or will we use our skills to challenge and transform those systems?
You are not just a designer. You are a steward of power. The systems you build shape what people can access, feel, and believe.
Design will never be neutral—but it can be courageous. The question is not whether you will take a stand but which one.
This article draws from the work of scholars and practitioners, including Sasha Costanza-Chock, Ruha Benjamin, the Creative Reaction Lab, and countless community organizers working at the intersection of design and justice.
