- Mary Bad Things
- Posts
- The Case of DEI v. Target Corporation
The Case of DEI v. Target Corporation
Yes, doing the right thing involves taking a risk
Mary Drummer
24 Mar • Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes
In 1991, Aaron Tippin sang
“You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.”
And that is a lesson Target is learning the hard way.
We all know about the economic boycotts against Target ever since it announced that it was rolling back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. And the boycott appears to be having its intended effect. Forbes notes:
“Target’s stock price. … is down 24%—from 137.40 on Jan. 24, the day Target cut its programs—to 104.70 on March 15. Within that time frame, the stock is down 10% from when the 40-day kickoff began on March 5, accelerating an ongoing downward trend in its stock price since late 2024.”
The stock market is going through some turmoil right now for a number of reasons – including consumers pulling back on non-essential purchases — so we can’t 100% attribute this accelerated downward spiral to the boycott, but it’s not helping either.
While Target is facing public economic pressure to reinstate its DEI initiatives, it is facing legal pressure to end them entirely.
In 2023 we saw right-wing outrage over Target’s PRIDE collection (that they’ve had for years) on social media — at least one outrageous claim was debunked. Shortly after, shareholder Brian Craig filed a lawsuit in Florida alleging that Target misled its shareholders about the potential backlash of its Pride Collection. The case was allowed to move forward in December 2024.
This was enough for Target to cut back on PRIDE merchandise in some stores and eliminate it entirely in others.
The state of Florida and the Ohio State Teachers Retirement System (STRS)* are suing Target over alleged securities violations regarding its DEI programs. Never one to miss a way to waste taxpayers dollars, (STRS) is doing so after some “nudging” by the state Attorney General, David Yost – who just happens to be running for Governor in 2026. According to the Columbus Dispatch:
“The move comes after Yost publicly chastised the pension board for eschewing the lawsuit because STRS had lost only $5 million on Target stock. The board policy is the system won't get involved in lawsuits unless losses exceed $10 million.”
All of these groups are being represented by America First Legal (AFL), a conservative legal organization that was led by Stephen Miller — a Senior Advisor to Donald Trump who is not a lawyer, but was the architect of the family separation policies during the first Trump administration.
AFL has also called on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to investigate NASCAR — yes, that NASCAR — for discriminating against white, male Americans due to its DEI initiatives that seek to recruit more women and people of color to the organization. From their complaint:
“ NASCAR continues to aver that the point of the “Diversity Driver Development Program,” the “Diversity Pit Crew Program,” and the “Diversity Internship Program” is to “provide training and opportunities for women and minorities in the driver’s seat and on pit crews within the NASCAR industry.” NASCAR’s and Rev Racing’s commitment to race and sex-based hiring has not wavered— the website changes described above seem to have been designed only to conceal their ongoing, deliberate, and illegal discrimination against white, male Americans.”
AFL has also filed EEOC complaints and lawsuits against corporations and universities like Nike, Northwestern University, and others claiming that their DEI policies discriminate against white, male Americans. The most insidious part is that their legal argument involves invoking the 1964 Civil Rights Act as the base of their claims and using the decision of Brown v. Board of Education to bolster their arguments in terms of the effects of racial segregation. The passage that is frequently included in their arguments is:
“To separate [African-American children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.”
Except AFL is substituting African-American children with white men.
They’re not the only ones. Ed Blum successfully argued for the end of Affirmative Action before the Supreme Court, and he also was able to get the Fearless Fund to end their grant program that awarded $20,000 to small, Black women-owned businesses. Ed Blum didn’t use the 1964 Civil Rights Act as the basis for his argument. He used the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed exclusively to establish citizenship and to protect the civil liberties of formerly enslaved people.
We’re watching the Trump administration do everything in — and out of — its power to abolish civil rights at the federal level and at universities across the country. Since the federal government doesn’t have the authority to make corporations do what they want with a signing of an Executive Order, right-wing legal organizations who are ideologically — if not personally — aligned with the administration can take them on.
By damaging corporations in the court of public opinion and exploiting the loss of stock value, these right-wing lawyers can force companies to capitulate and give them exactly what they want. Everyone wins – except for those of us who want more DEI and benefit from it.
Target is a multi-billion dollar corporation that must make a choice: Are they doing to stand for diversity, equity, and inclusivity? Or will they fall like some Jenga blocks?