By Evan Lee Salim 
By Crystal Hall
“I knew quite well that equal justice was an aspiration. I knew that the force of the law was applied unevenly, sometimes by design. But I also knew that what was wrong with the system didn’t need to be an immutable fact. And I wanted to be part of changing that.”
These words, penned by Vice President Kamala Harris, serve as both a personal credo and a lightning rod for contemporary political discourse. As she navigates the final, high-stakes stretch of the 2024 presidential campaign, Harris’s professional history as a prosecutor—and her nuanced admission of the flaws within the American legal apparatus—has come under a microscope. Her candidacy, as the first woman of color to lead a major U.S. party’s presidential ticket, is more than a milestone in representation; it is a case study in the tension between working within flawed institutions and the imperative to dismantle their inequities.
For the behavioral science community, this tension is not merely political; it is methodological. It forces a long-overdue reckoning: can a field historically dedicated to "nudging" individual behavior truly address the structural forces that define the human experience?
The Intersection of Biography and Structural Reality
To understand the scrutiny surrounding Vice President Harris is to understand the complexity of institutional reform. Harris has consistently positioned herself as a pragmatist who acknowledges systemic failure without succumbing to fatalism. This duality—recognizing the "uneven application" of the law while choosing to operate within the machinery of justice—is a delicate balancing act.
In the current political climate, opponents have sought to weaponize this record, using identity politics to challenge both her personal history and the broader policy framework of the Biden-Harris administration. Yet, beneath the political theater lies a deeper, more philosophical question that resonates far beyond the campaign trail: How does one effect change in a system that was, in many ways, designed to remain static?
For behavioral scientists, this is a critical pivot point. For decades, the field has operated on the assumption that if we can optimize the individual’s choice architecture—making the "right" choice easier or more attractive—we can solve systemic social problems. However, as Harris’s career illustrates, individual agency is rarely the sole variable. When the system itself is the primary architect of inequality, an individual-focused "nudge" may be, at best, a bandage on a structural wound.
Chronology of a Field in Transition: From Nudge to Structural Analysis
The evolution of behavioral science can be traced through its shifting relationship with context. In its early, high-profile years, the "nudge" movement—popularized by figures like Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein—prioritized efficiency. The goal was to help people make better decisions regarding their health, finances, and environment.
The Era of Individualism (2008–2015)
During this period, behavioral science enjoyed a surge of institutional legitimacy. From the creation of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team in the Obama White House to the implementation of "nudge units" across the globe, the focus was squarely on the choice architecture of the individual. The underlying logic was that human error and cognitive biases were the primary barriers to progress.
The Awakening to Systemic Constraints (2016–2022)
As scholars began to apply these interventions to marginalized communities, a pattern of failure emerged. Interventions that worked in affluent, homogenous populations often faltered in environments characterized by historical mistrust, economic precarity, and institutional racism. Researchers began to realize that an individual’s ability to "choose" is severely constrained by the system they occupy.
The Era of Redesign (2023–Present)
We are currently in a phase of professional introspection. The publication of works such as Antiracist by Design: Reimagining Applied Behavioral Science, which I co-authored with Mindy Hernandez, represents this transition. The movement is no longer just about optimizing choices; it is about questioning whether the environment itself is designed to exclude, and if so, how to redesign it from the ground up.
Supporting Data: The Cost of Ignoring Structure
The necessity of this shift is backed by an increasing body of empirical evidence. Research into identity concealment, for instance, provides a stark example of how environment shapes behavior. A recent paper by Joel Le Forestier and Neil Lewis, Jr. underscores that the tendency to hide stigmatized identities—whether related to race, sexuality, or socioeconomic status—is not a personal failure or a psychological quirk. It is a strategic response to a hostile environment.
When behavioral scientists design interventions without accounting for this context, they risk perpetuating harm. Consider a standard nudge designed to increase uptake of mental health services. If that nudge is deployed in a community that has suffered from decades of medical bias, state surveillance, or economic divestment, the intervention may be viewed with suspicion. If the behavioral scientist ignores that history, they are not being "neutral"—they are being exclusionary.
Data suggests that interventions ignoring systemic factors often widen the gap between the privileged and the marginalized. Those who already have the social capital to navigate systems successfully are the ones who benefit from simple nudges, while those facing structural barriers remain left behind.
Official Responses and Academic Discourse
The professional response to this call for a more "system-aware" behavioral science has been both enthusiastic and cautious. Within the halls of academia, there is a growing consensus that the traditional, narrow focus of behavioral economics is insufficient for addressing 21st-century social challenges.
However, critics within the field often raise concerns about the "scope creep" of behavioral science. They argue that by involving ourselves in structural, political, and historical analysis, we move away from the rigorous experimental methods that define the discipline.
My counter-argument, and the core thesis of our forthcoming work, is that behavioral science is already "political." Every time we decide which behavior to "nudge," we are making a value judgment about what is desirable. By failing to account for structural racism, we are not avoiding politics; we are defaulting to the status quo. Embracing a systemic lens is not a departure from science—it is an expansion of it. It is the acknowledgement that the "human" in "human behavior" cannot be studied in a vacuum.
Implications for the Future: A Roadmap for Change
If we are to align the field of behavioral science with the complexities of the modern world, we must adopt a new, multi-faceted approach. This involves several critical shifts:
1. The Systems Analysis Requirement
Before any intervention is designed, practitioners must conduct a thorough systems analysis. This involves mapping the constraints—economic, historical, and institutional—that surround the target population. If an individual is choosing between a healthy meal and a cheaper, processed one, we must ask: Is this a matter of "nudging" them toward the healthy option, or is it a matter of food apartheid and structural income inequality?
2. Participatory Design
The days of the "expert" designing interventions for "the community" must end. True efficacy requires that we bring members of affected communities into the research and design process from day one. This does not just build better interventions; it builds trust. It ensures that the solutions we propose are aligned with the lived reality of those they are meant to serve.
3. Redesigning for Equity
We must be willing to advocate for policy changes. If an intervention reveals a systemic bottleneck—for example, that a bureaucratic process is intentionally designed to discourage applicants—the behavioral scientist’s role should not just be to "nudge" people through that bottleneck, but to work with policymakers to dismantle it entirely.
Conclusion: A Model for Professional Engagement
Vice President Harris’s career provides a resonant, if challenging, model for those of us in the behavioral sciences. She acknowledges the "uneven force of the law" while simultaneously working within the system to seek justice. She does not suggest that the system is perfect; she suggests that it is improvable.
For those of us dedicated to the study of human behavior, the lesson is clear: systemic inequities are not immutable laws of nature. They are human-made structures, and like any structure, they can be redesigned. But this work requires more than just a clever nudge or a well-placed reminder. It requires a fundamental commitment to confronting the structural forces that shape our lives.
As we look toward the future of our field, we must ask ourselves: Are we designing for the world as it is, or for the world as it should be? If we want to reach the full potential of behavioral science—to make a meaningful, lasting difference in the lives of the diverse populations we serve—we must be willing to look beyond the individual. We must look at the system. We must be, in every sense of the word, antiracist by design.
Crystal C. Hall is the John and Marguerite Walker Corbally Endowed Associate Professor in Public Service at the University of Washington. Her research integrates psychology into the design and implementation of social policy. She has collaborated with government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels, including the Federal Office of Evaluation Sciences and the White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team. Her forthcoming book, "Antiracist by Design" (MIT Press), co-authored with Mindy Hernandez, offers a roadmap for a more equitable behavioral science.
Basiran 
Lina Hope 
rifanmuazin 