The Bakersfield Valley Plaza has always been an important hotspot for local teenagers. From going to see the latest movies to hit the box office, shopping with friends, or eating in the mall’s food court. While on a surface level, this seems to be completely harmless, some have noticed an increasing level of juvenile delinquent activity and have begun to think otherwise. In response, the local Target located inside the Valley Plaza mall, has decided to declare a chaperone policy for all teenagers after four p.m. This means that any individual under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a legal adult before entering Target at any time after four p.m. I believe that this new Target policy is flawed in its fundamental application.

This policy in theory was enacted to prevent an increase in fights and thefts at the Target. However, store employees are not allowed to check the ID of anyone entering the store, and must instead make their decision based on appearance, and this is where the greater problem arises. Can anyone be trusted to make a perfectly impartial decision when it comes to allowing other people into a location? Who’s to say that the personal biases of the Target employee may not come into play? Especially if they are judging people based on their appearance. Once you look deeper into the implementation of this policy it soon becomes very clear that this could lead to discrimination based on more than just age, and while preventing thefts and fights is a logical and noble cause, were there not better ways to go about stopping them? 

On the other hand, according to California courts youth crime has declined over 50% over the past decade, this includes violent crime, drug-related offenses, and property offenses (property damage and theft). This begs the question whether this rule is necessary in the first place. Despite all of this, my greatest issue with Target’s declaration is not the policy itself, because it is grounded in logical reality. Preventing thefts and fights is a good idea. However, I previously mentioned that flawed implication of the policy is too great an issue to be ignored. 

It’s not intelligent or proper to have a person be refused or denied entry to an establishment simply because they ‘look too young’. This in itself may promote even more unnecessary conflicts with angry customers confused about why they are refused entry when just the other day they could enter with no trouble at all. However, angry customers trying to get into Target isn’t the great issue I have with the new Target policy. It’s the flawed enforcement of this rule and how subconscious bias can come into play. There is nothing preventing an employee with a flawed worldview from refusing a customer simply because they don’t like the look of them under the guise of age. However, this is not to claim every Target employee allowing people entry or denying them at the door is going to be instantly judging someone based on their race but, nobody is immune to personal bias’s even if it’s a tiny subconscious voice in the back of our heads telling us not to trust someone based on their appearance. 

While Target itself may not be pushing customers from their door because of race, once again nothing is preventing the people who enforce these rules from doing the same, because of a small subconscious bias that they don’t even know is at play within their minds. Even if the employee in question isn’t trying to be malicious or hateful, humans are not infallible machines. We are subject to bias and imperfections which will always come into play in our lives. This is why I believe that this new Target curfew invites more conflict than it prevents.