(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
Target Missed the Target: Replacing DEI with Fairness [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']
Date: 2025-05-16
Children have an amazing unfairness radar. It’s always scanning the environment, and when it detects a questionable experience, the chorus is almost always the same: “That’s not fair.” A child expects that someone will step in and correct the situation—right away.
In sports, we have rules to ensure fair play, and officials to enforce those rules: referees, umpires, line judges, scorekeepers, replay officials, timekeepers, and more. And like children, adults expect both the rules—and the enforcement of them—to be fair.
Fairness is foundational to the rule of law and the just application of that law. In nearly every area of life, we create and rely on rules to guide behavior and ensure fairness.
When fairness fails, people rebel. America’s Revolutionary War, after all, was sparked by perceived systemic unfairness. The colonists had a long list of grievances against the British Crown. These are clearly laid out in the Declaration of Independence, including:
1 Laws imposed without consent.
2 Taxation without representation.
3 Arbitrary interference with local governance and justice.
4 Unjust legal processes—such as taking colonists to Britain for trial.
These were fundamentally about a lack of fairness in governance, justice, and representation. In response, Jefferson and the other revolutionaries offered a moral argument: government exists to secure rights fairly. If it becomes destructive of that purpose, it must be changed. Fairness was the silent force behind the Declaration’s most famous phrases:
“All men [people] are created equal.”
“Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Fairness is a foundational American ideal. The philosopher John Rawls called it the basis of justice, defining “justice as fairness” in his 1971 work “A Theory of Justice.” Today, fairness remains a key ethical touchstone for evaluating the actions of governments, companies, and individuals alike.
And yet, in practice, fairness is often elusive.
Target Corporation, the second-largest discount retail chain in the U.S., has recently found itself caught in cultural crossfires. First came the Right’s attack and boycott in May 2023 over the company’s LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise displays. Then, in early 2025, came a second boycott—this time from the Left—after Target quickly abandoned its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives following President Trump’s January 20 executive order banning DEI in federal agencies. These two boycotts have each cost the company billions of dollars in sales.
On January 24, 2025, Target announced it would wind down its DEI programs but it was not until May 5, 2025, that CEO Brian Cornell sent an internal memo acknowledging employee concerns. He wrote, “I recognize that silence from us has created uncertainty, so I want to be very clear: We are still the Target you know and believe in.” He also reaffirmed the company’s commitment to “inclusivity, connection, and drive.” (Source:
https://thecincinnatiherald.com/2025/05/10/target-ceo-admits-lapse-in-communication/)
But his message rang hollow, too little, too late. How can a company eliminate DEI and simultaneously claim to uphold inclusivity and connection?
Target needs a new rudder to guide it into the future: fairness as a core operating principle can be that rudder. Fairness avoids jargon and partisan baggage. It resonates with both the Right and the Left. It speaks to employees and customers. Most importantly, it touches outcomes—who gets hired, who gets heard, who gets promoted, and who gets paid—fairly.
Fairness isn’t just a value. It’s a system. It begins by asking hard, measurable questions:
1 Are employees at all levels being paid equitably for the same work?
2 Are promotion paths transparent?
3 Are scheduling systems humane?
4 Are frontline workers listened to and respected?
These questions go beyond identity and into lived experience. They are about justice. They are about merit, too, but merit as understood through the lens of fairness.
Trump justified ending DEI by claiming it was unfair to merit. But that misunderstands both merit and fairness. Merit is a key expression of fairness: people should be rewarded based on their abilities, contributions, and performance. Merit is fair in that everyone has an equal chance to compete, and the most effective person is rewarded. The problem is that merit, by itself, is flawed because it assumes that a level playing field exists.
But merit has another flaw. It ignores the presence and hidden power of privilege, which creates inequality at the starting line. In this, merit, if we are truly interested in fairness, is significant but not sufficient. Merit is based on equality; except we are not equal, especially when privilege is present. Fairness requires more.
The “more” is Rawls’ “fair equality of opportunity,” which focuses ont he finish line, not the starting line. This is how we get to justice. Of course, the person with privilege may say, “I should not be penalized for my privilege.” The problem is that if privilege is ignored, merit is not merit; itis a mask for inequality. Further, and perniciously, privilege is an unearned advantage.
Because equality does not exist at the starting line, fairness demands that we recognize that people start from different positions and then adjust resources, access, and support to create fair outcomes at the finish line.
This adjustment is achieved through equity. It is, ironically, the mechanism by which fairness is made fair—the “fair” equality of opportunity, which is about “fair process” and “fair access,” not necessarily identical treatment. So, fairness is the principle, while equity is the method to ensure fairness. In DEI, equity was controversial, yet essential to balance “equality” at the starting line with fairness at the finish line. As above, this is the “fair equality of opportumity.”
With fairness, Target could still affirm inclusivity as Cornell did above. Inclusion at Target refers to how employees experience the workplace. Do employees feel welcome, safe, heard, and valued? Do they belong? Are they encouraged to be the best that they can be, which bends backward to fairness and equity?
True inclusion thrives when fairness is visible. When pay gaps close, when scheduling systems are more humane, when opportunities are shared, when decision-making includes more voices, when career development is democratized, then inclusion isn’t just a slogan, it’s a lived experience where employees feel seen, valued, and empowered. Inclusion is not a feel-good, warm, fuzzy feeling without substance. It is essential for an organization, especially a customer-facing company like Target, where employees reflect the brand. Inclusion is a dynamic centripetal force that pulls employees and customers toward the center.
This isn’t just semantics. It’s a re-centering. Companies like Target should stop chasing slogans and start grounding themselves in principles that can hold. Fairness is one of those principles. It doesn’t need translation. It doesn’t polarize. It aligns with both American ideals and business results.
By placing fairness first and operationalizing it through equity, inclusion follows. These two—fairness and the centripetal force of inclusion—will yield many outcomes, including a diverse workforce and a diverse, loyal customer base. Diversity is not an input; it is an outcome.
Diversity that doesn’t rest on fairness can become tokenism. And diversity without inclusion leads to attrition. By putting fairness first,companies build the conditions that attract and retain truly diverse teams. Diversity becomes the evidence of success, not an artificial starting point.
So here we replace DEI with a dynamic formula: Fairness + Inclusion = Diversity (FID).
Trump’s attack on DEI was racist. It was successful, at least in part, and to date, because too many companies put on the cloak of DEI without pairing it with their fundamental business values and strategies. Target has been battered by the Right and now the Left. It will only flourish if it finds a center that holds.
Implementing FID with employees is challenging, but implementing it for customers is daunting because customers represent a vast and unpredictable range of experiences, expectations, and identities. Navigating fairness across such a diverse public requires constant listening, adaptation, and courage. Fairness requires that pricing is transparent, service is equitable, and policies are applied consistently, without bias. Feedback isn’t ignored or, importantly, filtered by status—every customer has a voice, and it counts. When customers feel treated fairly, welcomed, seen, and respected they become not just loyal—they become advocates. At its core, FID reminds us that fairness is dignity in action and that’s what makes FID not just a moral imperative, but a strategic one.
Target has proved that it can’t be all things to all customers — and trying to be has only deepened distrust. The backlash from the Right over Pride and the outrage from the Left over the retreat from DEI reveal a hard truth: some values are in direct conflict, and companies must make choices that will inevitably disappoint some. The FID (Fairness, Inclusion, Dignity) framework doesn’t sidestep these dilemmas — it clarifies them. Instead of chasing approval from every group, FID challenges companies to ground their decisions in consistent principles: Are we treating all customers with dignity? Are our policies fair, our messaging respectful, our experiences inclusive by design? FID can’t make everyone happy — but it can make a company trustworthy.
Fairness is a center that is also an anchor. It is not fragile. Fairnessis a value that children understand instinctively and adults demand consciously. It binds communities, legitimizes systems, strengthens trust, and can enliven corporations. When fairness is the target, success is the result.
Day 117: days left to January 20, 2029: 1,345 days
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/5/16/2322665/-Target-Missed-the-Target-Replacing-DEI-with-Fairness?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
