Atinuke Adediran, Racial Targets, 118 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1455 (2024).
In the wake of the extrajudicial murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, millions protested across the U.S. and worldwide against the racial and social injustices that persist within society. The 2020 “racial reckoning” protests were the largest racial justice demonstrations in the U.S. since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and witnessed a broad spectrum of society coming together to demand redress for pervasive inequities across race, gender, and socioeconomic lines. Even companies, that had traditionally preferred to stand on the sidelines with respect to racial justice issues, stepped into the fray, publicly declaring their support for racial justice and promising to do their part to combat racial inequities. As part of these efforts, hundreds of companies since 2020 have voluntarily pledged to increase people of color within their ranks, specifying numerical targets and timelines for achieving these goals.
In her new paper, Racial Targets, published in Northwestern Law Review, Professor Atinuke Adediran tackles the thorny question: are corporate racial targets legally permissible? Adediran joins in conversation with several scholars who have been considering how the 2020 “racial reckoning” has impacted corporate behavior. To do so, she examines voluntary racial goals (i.e., racial targets) that companies have publicly established for themselves in response to shareholder, investor, and employee pressures to support racial equity. Adediran argues that racial targets are meaningfully distinct from racial quotas and, as such, despite the constitutional illegality of the latter, the former are within the boundaries of the law.
Before diving into the question of legality, Adediran first details the prevalence, contours, and features of racial targets. Using a rich dataset, she does both a quantitative and qualitative analysis of racial targets as disclosed in companies’ ESG and diversity reports between 2018 and 2023. Based on her analysis, Adediran categorizes racial targets into two groups: closed-end and open-end targets. The primary difference between the groups is that the former specifies a timeframe within which the company hopes to achieve its stated target, and the latter does not. Her empirical analysis provides details on the growing use, language used, and groups specified in racial targets, and sets the stage for the legal analysis on the permissibility of racial targets.
Adediran’s examination of voluntary racial targets is particularly timely in light of the current backlash against them. Critics of racial targets cast them as being the same as racial quotas and, with the recent successful challenges to race-conscious university admissions,1 there is concern that voluntary corporate racial goals may be next. Adediran asserts that “[a]lthough the post-2020 racial reckoning’s increase in racial targets appears new, there is a historical background for the… development of these targets….” This historical background, which Adediran richly provides, demonstrates that “companies are inclined to establish racial targets, carefully orchestrating them to comply with [both] Title VII and judicial precedents that made racial quotas illegal.2
Adediran argues that racial targets differ from racial quotas in three meaningfully distinct ways that are key to the legality of targets. First, targets are private and voluntary pledges that companies choose to undertake. Second, targets do not apply to specific occupations and jobs but instead apply to the institution as a whole. Third, targets are non-binding, aspirational goals. These features, Adediran asserts, mean that racial targets ought to be analyzed under a standard that prioritizes corporate discretion, thereby allowing companies to create plans for their workforce that meet their needs and address their shortcomings.
Racial Targets is as thoughtful as it is timely, and it engages well with the thorny questions surrounding the legality of private, voluntary race-conscious goal setting in the workplace. Adediran provides a thoughtful empirical analysis of racial targets today and grounds our understanding of these corporate goals in their historical context, thereby painting a full picture of the ways in which courts have consistently viewed these private corporate decisions as legally permissible. In today’s fraught and polarizing environment, in which race-conscious decision-making is under attack, Adediran highlights the importance of looking back to understand what lies ahead.
- See Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), which held that the college’s asserted compelling interests for its race-based admissions program was not sufficiently measurable to satisfy the strict scrutiny for an equal protection requirement.
- Atinuke O. Adediran, Racial Targets, 118 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1455, 1485 (2024).
