Target rolled back DEI efforts. A boycott ensued – and traffic dropped

CNN - Apr 21st, 2025

Target's recent announcement to scale back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) commitments has sparked significant backlash from both customers and community leaders. This reaction was notably led by Rev. Jamal Bryant, who instigated a 40-day boycott during Lent, urging shoppers to avoid the retail giant. The boycott, known as the 'Target Fast,' reportedly involved over 200,000 participants and coincided with a notable decline in store foot traffic, down 9% year-over-year in February and 6.5% in March. After discussions with CEO Brian Cornell, Target agreed to maintain its pledge to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses. However, Bryant has called for the boycott to continue until further commitments are met, highlighting the growing tension between corporate decisions and consumer expectations.

The context of this development lies in the broader socio-political landscape, where companies like Target are navigating the challenges of maintaining DEI initiatives amid pressure from conservative entities, including former President Donald Trump's administration. Target, once a champion of progressive values, especially post-George Floyd's death, is now under scrutiny for its perceived shift away from these values. The situation underscores the risks companies face when altering diversity policies, particularly for brands with a customer base that strongly supports such initiatives. The economic impact extends beyond Target, affecting minority-owned businesses that rely on the retailer's platform, as seen by the launch of initiatives like the 'Bullseye Black Market,' aimed to support Black entrepreneurs directly. This development serves as a reminder of the influence consumers wield over corporate practices and the delicate balance businesses must maintain in their public commitments.

Target Trump Administration Diversity And Inclusion Boycott Black Owned Businesses Dei Policy Jamal Bryant

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of Target's decision to scale back its DEI commitments and the resulting public response. It effectively highlights the controversy surrounding the decision and its potential impact on minority-owned businesses, making it a topic of significant public interest. While the article presents a balanced view by including perspectives from both sides, it could benefit from further corroboration of certain claims and a wider range of authoritative sources. The article is well-written and accessible, but additional transparency and detailed explanations for complex topics would enhance its overall clarity and reliability. Despite these areas for improvement, the article successfully engages readers by covering a controversial and impactful topic that resonates with ongoing societal debates about diversity and inclusion.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that are partially supported by external sources, such as Target's announcement of scaling back its DEI commitments and the subsequent boycott led by Rev. Jamal Bryant. However, some claims lack direct corroboration, such as the specific details of foot traffic decline and the post-boycott agreement to honor a $2 billion pledge with Black-owned businesses. The article accurately reflects the broader context of corporate responses to DEI initiatives under political pressure, but certain details, like the direct influence of the Trump administration on Target's decision, remain unverified. Additionally, the article introduces unique claims, such as the criticism from the Dayton family, which require independent verification.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting perspectives from both the corporate side, with Target's statements about their new strategy and commitment to inclusivity, and the public response, particularly from Rev. Jamal Bryant and affected Black-owned businesses. However, it leans slightly towards highlighting the negative impact of Target's DEI rollback, emphasizing the boycott and its supporters' criticisms. The article could improve balance by including more viewpoints from Target's leadership or other stakeholders who support the changes. Additionally, while it mentions broader societal pressures on DEI initiatives, it could explore further the perspectives of those advocating for the rollback.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting the main events and claims in a logical sequence. It effectively communicates the key issues surrounding Target's DEI rollback and the resulting boycott, making it accessible to a general audience. However, some areas could benefit from additional clarification, such as the specific changes in Target's DEI strategy and the implications of the boycott on minority-owned businesses. The language is neutral and straightforward, but the inclusion of more detailed explanations for complex topics would enhance overall clarity and reader comprehension.

Source quality

The article references credible sources such as Placer.ai for foot traffic data and includes direct quotes from Rev. Jamal Bryant, adding to its reliability. However, the lack of direct attribution for some claims, such as the specific financial impacts and the Dayton family's criticism, weakens the overall source quality. The article could benefit from a wider range of authoritative sources, particularly from Target's management or independent analysts, to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. The reliance on unnamed sources or lack of direct attribution in some areas raises questions about the completeness and reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article provides some context for Target's DEI rollback and the subsequent boycott, but it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind certain data points, such as the foot traffic figures from Placer.ai. Additionally, the article does not disclose potential conflicts of interest or biases in the sources used, particularly regarding the motivations behind Rev. Jamal Bryant's boycott. While it mentions the broader political and societal context, it could improve transparency by detailing the basis for specific claims and the potential implications of the reported events. Greater clarity on the sources and their credibility would enhance the article's transparency.