Recent events have ignited a significant response from the Black community as Target and similar corporations face boycotts following their withdrawal from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This has created a ripple effect, challenging these companies’ commitments to inclusivity pledges made after George Floyd’s death.
Treece Jones from Dallas exemplifies the growing discontent among Black consumers. Previously a regular shopper at Target, Jones decided to boycott the retailer after it announced a rollback in DEI programs, including its promise to boost Black employee representation by 20%. Instead of shopping at these major retailers, many Black consumers are choosing to support local or Black-owned businesses directly.
Among those leading the charge is Rev. Jamal Bryant of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia, who has called for a ‘Target Fast’ during Lent, urging consumers to boycott Target. He criticizes the retailer’s shift in policy as a betrayal of promises made to the Black community. Bryant’s push is part of a larger movement of activists and faith leaders encouraging Black Americans to use their buying power as a tool for change.
The move by Target and others follows significant political pressure. Former President Donald Trump and conservative allies have decried DEI, framing it as contrary to merit-based hiring. Trump recently took steps to curtail such programs in the federal space, which many corporations have mirrored, fearing backlash.
While Target has highlighted its ongoing commitment to inclusivity through its ‘Belonging at the Bullseye’ strategy, civil rights advocates like Nekima Levy Armstrong see these as hollow words without substantive action. The sense of betrayal is particularly acute in Minneapolis, Target’s headquarters, where Floyd’s death sparked weeks of protest.
Despite the calls for boycott, some experts are skeptical about its financial impact on Target. Economist Vicki Bogan suggests that while the boycott raises critical awareness and sends a potent message about consumer values, it might not severely impact Target’s bottom line alone. This perspective is echoed by Adam Swart of Crowds on Demand, who notes that significant impact would require broader community support beyond just Black consumers.
The strategy of boycott isn’t new. Historically, it has been a powerful tool for civil rights movements, with the Montgomery bus boycott as a classic example. Current boycotts echo this legacy, but economic constraints make sustained effort more challenging for some Black consumers, particularly in financially strained households. Nevertheless, advocates argue that the symbolic and long-term reputational damage might force companies to reconsider their strategies.
The unfolding boycotts against Target and other major retailers underscore a critical moment in the ongoing dialogue about corporate responsibility and social equity. As Black consumers leverage their buying power to press for meaningful change, the ripple effects of these actions will likely influence future corporate policies and consumer behavior.
