As I look at thinning the herd on some of my subscriptions, I note that I am paying more for The Philadelphia Inquirer than for The New York Times and The Washington Post, both of which are better newspapers. But, not only am I more connected to the City of Brotherly Love, the Inky does provide some unrivaled entertainment!

I’m going to miss shopping at Target

Now that Target has announced a rollback of its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, I don’t know if I’ll ever step back inside.

by Jenice Armstrong | Wednesday, January 29, 2025 | 5:00 AM EST

I’m so mad at Target right now that I don’t know when — or if — I’ll ever step back inside one again now that the discount retailer has announced a rollback back of its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

It pains me to have to part ways with Tar-Jay. I was just there last week, buying a Red Flyer tricycle for my nephew that was on clearance. I got such a good deal that I circled back the next day and bought him a toy truck, also for next to nothing. Each time, as I lugged the merchandise to a checkout register, I found myself eyeing the colorful kitchen merchandise by vegan influencer Tabitha Brown. I told myself that I would circle back another day when I had more time. Same thing with the new Blogilates yoga line by fitness influencer Cassie Ho.

LOL! Having just seen Robert Stacy McCain’s two recent articles on a murderous “Radical Vegan Transgender Cult,” Mrs Armstrong’s paragraphs amused me.

But think about it: Target, like other retailers has been having difficulty in attracting and retaining employees. Why would they need a clearly discriminatory program like ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ when they are going to hire any applicant who is even remotely qualified and doesn’t have too bad a criminal record?

Now, that day may never come.

As one shopper wrote on social media, “They pulling back DEI efforts. I’m pulling back my coins!” It is upsetting that it has come to this. Over the years, the discount retailer has had some amazing collaborations with a diverse group of designers. I look forward to Target’s Black History Month collection. Several years back, the store partnered with historically Black colleges and universities “to support the next generation of Black talent.” As Brown pointed out on a YouTube video posted over the weekend, boycotting Target will hurt minority-owned brands like hers, which is unfortunate.

As we have noted many times, most recently here, Affirmative Action plans were always a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which the Supreme Court admitted in Grutter v Bollinger, back in 2003, and that the exception the Court allowed then, a “narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions” had to have a reasonable expiration date. Was Target using a “narrowly tailored” program?

Remember: the companion case to Grutter v Bollinger, Gratz v Bollinger, held that blanket advantages given to a particular race were unconstitutional.

In Grutter, the University of Michigan Law School had a very limited number of seats available, and the competition for admission was stiff. When it comes to Target, the retailer is begging for applicants, and has no reason, no reason at all to discriminate against any particular group of applicants based on their race. Why does Target need a DEI program? Even with Mrs Armstrong’s complaints, why does that company need a DEI program?

DEI critics like to say that the acronym stands for “didn’t earn it,” yet remain silent as Trump fills his cabinet with inexperienced and unqualified MAGA loyalists. It’s galling to watch, not to mention misguided. DEI programs are important because they increase representation from historically disadvantaged groups in majority white settings. It’s not just a Black thing. Nor is it just a LGBTQ thing. In fact, the biggest beneficiaries of DEI are white women. But that hasn’t stopped conservatives from claiming that it puts white Americans at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, Trump’s cabinet picks are once again predominantly white men. A government of the people should look like the people.

What, I have to ask, does that have to do with Target? If “DEI programs are important because they increase representation from historically disadvantaged groups in majority white settings,” but is there any evidence that Target and other retailers, who are struggling to find employees, are not hiring qualified applicants of all “historically disadvantaged groups” out of the pool of those who do apply? Do the workers at Target not “look like” the local population from which they draw?

When, I have to ask, do Mrs Armstrong and those similarly inclined, believe that Affirmative Action and DEI should be ended?