Design thinking, according to Razzouk and Shute (2012), is defined as "an analytic and creative process that engages a person in opportunities to experiment, create and prototype models, gather feedback, and redesign," (p. 330). The use of design thinking technqiues are justified by the fact that "being successful in today's highly technological and globally competitive world requires a person to develop and use a different set of skills than were needed before" (Shute & Becker, 2010, as cited in Razzouk & Shute, 2012, p. 330). According to Razzouk and Shute (2012), as cited in Kolodner and Wills (1996), there are three major cognitive processes involved in design thinking (p. 336-337): 1. Preparation: Designers figure out the what the problem is and how to prepare to answer it. 2. Assimilation: Designers come up with ideas, research, and build prototypes. They learn from the iterations they build. 3. Strategic Control: Designers consider what they have learned during the assimilation phase and begin to make decisions on how to move forward. In the world of tech, design thinking is particularly compelling because it provides a framework for building innovative solutions to problems. When the design thinking process is meticulously considered, in the right context, it can be an extremely useful to solve a *design* problem. The problem with design thinking, however, is how ubiquitous it has become across disciplines. It can be particularly harmful when implemented in an attempt to solve deeper social issues. Ruha Benjamin, author of *Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code*, is particularly critical of the five-step approach to design thinking: "empathize; define; ideate; prototype; test", (p. 174). She asks the reader to consider which humans are most likely prioritized when design thinking is applied under racial capitalism, and argues that for the most part, *empathizing* follows the whim of the number one priority: whoever is footing the designer's bill. She is also critical of the use of five-step buzzwords to legitimize design thinking, and writes: >Graphic designer Natasha Jen puts it bluntly in her talk “Design Thinking is Bullshit,” urging design practitioners to avoid the jargon and buzzwords associated with their field, to engage in more self-criticism, to base their ideas on evidence, and to stop assuming that their five-step process is needed for any and every thing. (p. 174) >What, I wonder, are the theoretical and practical effects of using design-speak to describe all our hopes, dreams, qualms, criticisms, and visions for change? What is gained and by whom in the process of submerging so much heterogeneity under the rubric of design? (p. 176) In the end, the designer also suffers from bearing the responsibility of mending social issues under the guise of "design thinking". Benjamin notes scholar Lee Vinsel's critique of Sarah Stein Greenberg's talk on reinventing college, which draws on Brazilian educator Paulo Freire's philosophies in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, "in which he writes, 'if the structure does not permit dialogue, the structure must be changed,'" (p. 177). Freire's work is applicable here because he defines the pedagogy of the oppressed as "the pedagogy of people engaged in the fight for their own liberation," (Freire 51). This process has two parts: firstly, that the oppressed must reveal the world of oppression and commit to transforming it, and secondly, that the pedagogy moves from being the responsibility of the oppressed to the responsibility of all people. In ending the relationship between the oppressed and their oppressors, the oppressed then also free their oppressors from an endless cycle of dehumanization and violence. In other words, if designers who implement the will of those who pay their bills function as oppressors under racial capitalism, lifting oppression not only liberates the oppressed but also frees the oppressors from endless cycles of dehumanizing work. Benjamin also states that “design is a colonizing project...to the extent that it is used to describe any and everything”, (p. 176). Design colonizes the expertise of those who are doing the real work to effect social change, and this affects both designers and those who they design for. The burden placed on designers to solve real world issues becomes too great, and without evidence-based research guiding their work, their designs can do more harm to others than good. Additionally, designers (especially white designers), can receive credit for the work that many others are already doing. # References Benjamin, R. (2019). _Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code_. Polity. Freire, P. (2000). _Pedagogy of the oppressed_ (30th anniversary ed). Continuum. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? _Review of Educational Research_, _82_(3), 330–348. [https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429](https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429)