Target’s latest controversy is raising a larger question beyond how an offensive children’s costume reached its website: What happens when companies remove diverse voices from the rooms where critical decisions are made? 

The retailer is facing backlash after a children’s Halloween costume sold on its website drew comparisons to racist blackface and minstrel imagery. Target listed the $25 costume as the “Kids’ Glows under Blacklight Circus Clown Halloween Costume Bodysuit” from its Hyde and EEK! Boutique brand. The costume showed a Black boy wearing a black bodysuit with the face and hands appearing completely dark, contrasted by an exaggerated, wide mouth.

Consumers quickly took notice and pointed out its close resemblance to the racist caricatures historically associated with blackface and minstrel performances. Target took the costume down for its website and issued a public apology on Monday. 

“As a company, we know we got this wrong, and we are deeply sorry,” Target said in a statement. “ The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment. It is no longer available for sale. We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners. Removing the costume is an important first step, and the company is looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again.

The incident has sparked a larger conversation about cultural awareness and corporate accountability or lack of. LaKendria Robinson, founder of The Orenda Collective, a project and management consulting firm based in Tampa, focused on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) says it is a direct reflection of the real consequences of removing DEI from workspaces. 

“The Halloween costume debacle is a direct result of there not being diverse voices at the table, that can flag things that could not only be offensive to the community but could also affect the bottom line of a company,” says Robinson. 

Since 2023, there has been a wave of anti-DEI legislation proposed and passed by lawmakers. States such as Florida and Texas have passed such legislation that limits, restricts or defunds that function in an inclusive space. Last year, Target ended its 3-year DEI rollout program, which prompted boycotts from primarily Black consumers who used to shop there like Robinson.  

Robinson was a former Target shopper but has not been in the store in over a year and does not see herself returning in the foreseeable future. She recalls Target as being a company who made bold statements and spearheaded great initiatives to foster inclusion. 

“Target was one of those places where everybody, regardless of who they were, what they identified as, or who they loved, they saw themselves physically in the merchandise, in the marketing in their company,” says Robinson. “So Target for us, for me personally, felt like a safe place. And then when they rolled all of their DEI initiatives back, after having such a strong commitment it really left a bad taste in my mouth.” 

Willie Roberson, the Managing Director at FGS Global, a global communications and public affairs consulting firm in Washington D.C. says Target made its current bed when they started to rollback its internal diversity commitments. And that their apology is empty without any action. 

“Big picture on issues like this is finding pathways to do better,” says Roberson.  “Whether a brand embarks on sensitive imagery or regular content, they must do the work on whether their product/campaign is authentic to the people they are trying to speak to. Brands do this all the time. For companies that don’t do that work, the floor is whether or not the people building the product or campaign have their thumb on the pulse to avoid disaster. Neither happened here for Target.”

For many, the question isn’t simply whether Target intended the costume to be offensive.It is how a product could move through multiple levels of a major corporation without raising concerns. Rafael Sarim Oezdemir, the Head of Growth and marketing leader of EZContacts, a US retailer of eyewear, says a diverse review team, particularly one with Black members, would’ve definitely noticed the red flags in such a product. 

“Moreover, the timing of this case, coming just months after Target had rolled back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives, speaks directly to the core of the problem,” says Oezdemir, noting that this is not the first time the retailer has been in the hot seat. According to Oezdemir, last year’s grassroot boycott resulted in a 21% drop in Target’s net income in the second fiscal quarter and an overall 1.7% decline in a full-year of net sales to $104.8 billion.

Oezdemir says, “As one commentator rightly pointed out, once you take diversity out of the room, you end up with people who won’t tell you that “this is wrong”. 

As to whether Target can bounce back from its latest hiccup, the recovery will be bumpy but possible. Aside from the financial repercussions, experts say the latest obstacle will be regaining trust. 

“They’re going to have a hard time winning back the trust and the confidence of the people that they worked really hard to build it in,” says Robinson. “And I think people are in a place where they’re tired of giving second and third and fourth and fifth chances to companies, people and organizations who will show them time and time again that they will turn on you when things aren’t going their way.” 

Roberson believes recovery is possible but it will not happen overnight. 

“It will be a tough road back to building trust with Black and Brown consumers with all of these false steps,” he says.  “I hope down the line their leadership eventually looks in the mirror and asks themselves whether it actually needed to be like this and whether it was worth it or not.”

This article was originally published on RoyalTee Magazine