Target Corporation Did Not Make DEI a Performative Enemy
When “...being judged by the content of character” (Dr. King’s Dream) manifests itself in real-time due to the elimination of policy-forced culture in human capital workgroups, some seek to protest self-actualization, a trained response from the manifestation and evolution from the residual leftovers of the Jim Crow Era.
By Don Allen, Journal of A Black Teacher (2025)
Optics Over Substance Is a Danger
The problem with corporate DEI efforts has never been that they were too radical. If you ever walked into any diversity, equity, or inclusion office, every one of them had some kind of poster based on the culture of that individual, i.e., if it was an African-American office, you'd more than likely see pictures of King, Malcolm X, Harriet Tubman, W.E.B. Dubois, and others with some symbolism of the colors red, black, and green. The emergence of substitute culture established distinct shrines within Corporate America. In these offices, the human capital forged a culture-singularity that the dominant cultures never accepted. As a result, DEI transformed into a spectacle rather than a genuine asset for the company, school, community, or government.
The problem is that for too long, DEI was performative rather than substantive.
The proliferation of corporate DEI statements, executive diversity councils, and public commitments in the wake of George Floyd's 2020 murder created a sense for many that meaningful change was finally happening. But much of what we saw was superficial: naming a chief diversity officer with little authority, launching one-off initiatives, or pledging funds that were never fully disbursed. So when the political and economic pressures hit, Target, among many other companies, quietly scaled back its DEI efforts. Does this make Target the enemy, or does this reveal what many of us suspected all along-that corporate America was engaging in DEI as a public relations strategy rather than as a structural commitment? Minneapolis-headquartered Target has long been among the more progressive corporations regarding community investment and diverse hiring, but like any other corporation, it exists to maximize profit as a social justice entity. This does not excuse rollbacks on DEI efforts, but it does mean we should not be surprised when those efforts fade once public pressure does.
The issue is not that companies like Target scale back DEI—it is that DEI itself was never designed to be fully institutionalized in corporate America in the first place. In lieu of this understanding, a great part of Black America once more has stormed social media calling for boycotts, a blind spot regarding how DEI in itself was never fully a commitment but was conditioned on social pressure and, ultimately, economic metrics.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this latest controversy is the knee-jerk reaction to boycott Target without a deeper understanding of what a sustainable, strategic economic response should look like. When done effectively, boycotts require coordination, sustained action, and clear demands. The Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted over a year and had a clear objective—desegregation. The Target boycott, however, lacks clear goals beyond vague frustration over DEI cutbacks.
Is there a demand to reinstate Target's full DEI initiatives? To be more transparent about where it stands? To invest more in Black businesses? Without strategic direction, boycotts fizzle out, and corporations move on without meaningful accountability. Worse, reactionary boycotts distract from the real economic battles that Black communities should be waging-things like demanding systemic investment in Black businesses, ownership, and long-term wealth-building opportunities.
Target is not Bud Light, which got backlash from conservatives over LGBTQ+ marketing and then retreated in a way that alienated all sides.
Nor is it Chick-fil-A, which has long been explicit about its ideological stance.
Target has consistently invested in diverse hiring, supplier diversity programs, and inclusive marketing. The reality is that no major corporation is going to be a perfect champion for DEI. What Black America must decide is whether we are engaging in economic activism that builds power or just reacting to the latest corporate pullback with outrage.
The outrage over Target's DEI rollback reveals a deeper problem many people have managed to conflate corporate DEI efforts with real racial progress. It was never the point. Diversity initiatives in corporate America were always about making workplaces more inclusive, not dismantling systemic racism. Hiring more Black executives, running cultural competency training, and diversifying ad campaigns are positive steps but do little to fundamentally change the balance of power. Real equity means that Black communities have access to capital, land, ownership, and institutional powers. Too often, though, we mistake the optics of DEI representation in marketing campaigns or corporate statements for real change. When the optics fade, we act like we've lost progress when, in fact, the fight for economic justice hasn't budged an inch.
Black America should be more concerned with building our institutions, not getting validation from white-led corporations. That means investing in Black business owners, investing in cooperative economics, and pushing for policy changes that benefit communities of color. That means understanding DEI in corporate America is always an if, as it is constructed on a system designed to prioritize profits over justice.
Rather than that energy being placed on boycotting Target, tougher questions must be asked:
It's time to move beyond reactionary outrage into strategic action. Instead of boycotting Target, why not demand the company release its supplier diversity numbers? Instead of assuming DEI is dead, why not push for transparency on what initiatives are actually being cut? Instead of seeking validation from corporations, why not invest in community-based economic initiatives that we control?
…Target is not the enemy...
The real enemy is our reliance on corporate DEI as a measure of progress rather than building economic power on our own terms. The rollback of DEI efforts should not be met with outrage alone but with a recalibration of strategy. It's time for Black America to stop letting optics trip it up and play the long game. DEI was never going to save us, and when that realization finally sets in, we will stop appealing to corporations for validation and instead start creating our economic destiny. King’s dream lives; competition returns, and the content of character is more valuable now than ever.
The issue is not that companies like Target scale back DEI—it is that DEI itself was never designed to be fully institutionalized in corporate America in the first place. In lieu of this understanding, a great part of Black America once more has stormed social media calling for boycotts, a blind spot regarding how DEI in itself was never fully a commitment but was conditioned on social pressure and, ultimately, economic metrics.
Boycotts without strategy are just empty protests.
One of the most frustrating aspects of this latest controversy is the knee-jerk reaction to boycott Target without a deeper understanding of what a sustainable, strategic economic response should look like. When done effectively, boycotts require coordination, sustained action, and clear demands. The Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted over a year and had a clear objective—desegregation. The Target boycott, however, lacks clear goals beyond vague frustration over DEI cutbacks.
Is there a demand to reinstate Target's full DEI initiatives? To be more transparent about where it stands? To invest more in Black businesses? Without strategic direction, boycotts fizzle out, and corporations move on without meaningful accountability. Worse, reactionary boycotts distract from the real economic battles that Black communities should be waging-things like demanding systemic investment in Black businesses, ownership, and long-term wealth-building opportunities.
Target is not Bud Light, which got backlash from conservatives over LGBTQ+ marketing and then retreated in a way that alienated all sides.
Nor is it Chick-fil-A, which has long been explicit about its ideological stance.
Target has consistently invested in diverse hiring, supplier diversity programs, and inclusive marketing. The reality is that no major corporation is going to be a perfect champion for DEI. What Black America must decide is whether we are engaging in economic activism that builds power or just reacting to the latest corporate pullback with outrage.
Corporate DEI Was Never the End Goal
The outrage over Target's DEI rollback reveals a deeper problem many people have managed to conflate corporate DEI efforts with real racial progress. It was never the point. Diversity initiatives in corporate America were always about making workplaces more inclusive, not dismantling systemic racism. Hiring more Black executives, running cultural competency training, and diversifying ad campaigns are positive steps but do little to fundamentally change the balance of power. Real equity means that Black communities have access to capital, land, ownership, and institutional powers. Too often, though, we mistake the optics of DEI representation in marketing campaigns or corporate statements for real change. When the optics fade, we act like we've lost progress when, in fact, the fight for economic justice hasn't budged an inch.
Black America should be more concerned with building our institutions, not getting validation from white-led corporations. That means investing in Black business owners, investing in cooperative economics, and pushing for policy changes that benefit communities of color. That means understanding DEI in corporate America is always an if, as it is constructed on a system designed to prioritize profits over justice.
Reframing the Conversation
Rather than that energy being placed on boycotting Target, tougher questions must be asked:
- What does real accountability for DEI look and feel like? When corporations pull back on their commitments to DEI, how do we create the economic leverage that will force them to reinvest?
- Where do we channel our energy? Other than reacting to DEI rollbacks, how do we build a long-term economic power that is not at the whim of corporate goodwill?
It's time to move beyond reactionary outrage into strategic action. Instead of boycotting Target, why not demand the company release its supplier diversity numbers? Instead of assuming DEI is dead, why not push for transparency on what initiatives are actually being cut? Instead of seeking validation from corporations, why not invest in community-based economic initiatives that we control?
…Target is not the enemy...
The real enemy is our reliance on corporate DEI as a measure of progress rather than building economic power on our own terms. The rollback of DEI efforts should not be met with outrage alone but with a recalibration of strategy. It's time for Black America to stop letting optics trip it up and play the long game. DEI was never going to save us, and when that realization finally sets in, we will stop appealing to corporations for validation and instead start creating our economic destiny. King’s dream lives; competition returns, and the content of character is more valuable now than ever.
Comments
Post a Comment