The Futility of Performative Boycotts: Why DEI Protests Miss the Mark

The recent 24-hour economic blackout on February 28, 2025, spearheaded by Reverend Al Sharpton, and the recent online shopping boycott have ignited debate over their effectiveness in addressing corporate and government policies. The goal of the protests was to challenge the abrupt rollback of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs following President Donald Trump’s re-election. However, the question remains: Is an economic boycott truly the way to achieve lasting social and economic change?

At its core, an economic blackout is a display of financial power, aiming to pressure corporations by temporarily withholding consumer spending. Yet, the reality is that a one-day or a one-week-online boycott is unlikely to cause substantial economic disruption or force long-term policy reversals. Major corporations operate on quarterly and annual revenue cycles, meaning a single day or an online week of reduced sales will barely register in their bottom lines. Furthermore, the effectiveness of such a movement is undermined by the inconsistency of participation. Many consumers, regardless of political stance, will still shop out of necessity or convenience, diluting the intended impact.

Another critical issue lies in the justification behind the protest. The DEI programs in question have been criticized for prioritizing hiring and promotions based on race, gender, and ethnicity rather than merit and qualifications.

While advocates argue these initiatives promote inclusivity, opponents highlight how they create new forms of exclusion by sidelining individuals who may be better suited for positions but do not fit into preferred demographic categories.

In a truly fair system, hiring should be based on skills, experience, and competency—not identity markers.

Beyond DEI, the larger narrative of the boycott revolves around perceived threats to civil liberties and equality. However, focusing on performative economic protests rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue or policy negotiations is an ineffective approach.

If change is to be pursued, it should come through structured debates, transparent policymaking, and a commitment to ensuring that all individuals—regardless of background—have equal opportunities based on their capabilities.

Rather than attempting to relive past movements that operated under vastly different societal conditions, those advocating for change must embrace rational solutions.

Protests may raise awareness, but real progress is achieved through policy reforms, economic empowerment, and an unwavering commitment to meritocracy.