Comments on: Who will win the race?

Who will win the race?

jaksemas — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:45:12 -0800

Starbucks announced a new campaign to start conversations about racial issues by inviting baristas to pen the words Race Together on the sides of their ubiquitous cups. Unsure how to talk to your baristas about race? Jezebel has you covered. Of course, some people are less than thrilled with the campaign.

By: fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit

fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:53:00 -0800

Somebody knows this may not be the best idea. (There were so many of these on Twitter yesterday. This was my other favorite.)

By: wenestvedt

wenestvedt — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:53:20 -0800

Welp, I don't think I am going to ask Jezebel what they think about the Redskins.

By: jb

jb — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:54:22 -0800

In a city where 50% of people are not white, I meet more queer people working at Starbucks than non white people. So, yeah, my first reaction is, "that's not going to be uncomfortable."

By: carbide

carbide — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:54:23 -0800

Oh wow, this might actually be the worst idea on record.

By: entropicamericana

entropicamericana — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:56:55 -0800

I recommend not asking Jezebel what to think about anything.

By: mrjohnmuller

mrjohnmuller — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:57:04 -0800

The snarkgasm over on #NewStarbucksDrinks was also thoroughly delicious.

By: Dr-Baa

Dr-Baa — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:57:09 -0800

I think the Open Source Boob project is still the worst idea. But this is a close second.

By: pearlybob

pearlybob — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:01:49 -0800

My Starbucks is smack in the middle of midtown Atlanta, it's very diverse race wise and leans heavily LGBTQ. I'm the minority being the straight, 40+ white woman... I know all my baristas well, we chat about everything since I'm in there so much.... They joke about looking for me a date since they know I'm newly single...we see each other outside the store and speak....they know my kids...why does the company have to dictate human interaction? The Starbucks where I go doesn't need any direction.

By: jb

jb — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:02:23 -0800

that said, I think I meet lots of queer people working at Starbucks, because it's a good minimum-wage job for students, etc, with a pretty strong culture of acceptance. But I still wonder about racial bias, concious or unconscious, in hiring. I knew someone who was very good, but continuously passed over for promotion at Starbucks, and I wondered if it was because she was culturally non-Anglo. Everyone I met who were promoted happened to also dress and speak in white, middle class style, even if they were not actually white.

By: Debaser626

Debaser626 — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:03:35 -0800

I will go ahead and presume that the actual goal of this is to get people everywhere talking about race in general, plus a handy plug for Starbucks, both of which are fine in my book. I've worn a few aprons at work, and we're I in a barista's shoes, I don't think I'd want to engage Joe Public about this topic... it might be a good excuse to chat with an acquaintance or buddy, or a customer one finds attractive, but this just seems odd.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:03:46 -0800

This is kind of awe-inspiring as a display of sheer cluelessness.

By: BigHeartedGuy

BigHeartedGuy — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:03:50 -0800

Hmm, just as a test I think tomorrow I will ask for a grande privilege with room.

By: ArbitraryAndCapricious

ArbitraryAndCapricious — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:05:02 -0800

I like Anil Dash's take on this. Basically, this seems likely to force Starbucks employees into really uncomfortable conversations, and I bet that falls most heavily on employees who are people of color. This seems like a terrible idea and like an invitation to create a hostile work environment. I don't really understand what they were thinking.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:05:32 -0800

I try to engage people in conversations about race, but if people are going to assume I'm shilling for Starbucks I should probably avoid the subject from now on.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:06:41 -0800

And I thought it was bad when Limited Too made me talk to customers about opening credit cards.

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:07:44 -0800

I think the Open Source Boob project is still the worst idea. I profoundly regret reading that thread.

By: TheWhiteSkull

TheWhiteSkull — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:07:46 -0800

Finally Starbucks baristas will stop writing "Bald Weirdo" on my coffee cups!

By: Huck500

Huck500 — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:08:37 -0800

Well, I could start going to Starbucks so they can teach me all about acceptance and equality, or I could continue to go to a local place that's owned and operated by a black family where they know my name and my drink and are 10x more professional and friendly than any Starbucks I've been to... but we don't talk about race or anything... yeah.

By: bleep

bleep — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:10:35 -0800

Does this guy not know how loud and stressful and busy his own stores are? The cashiers can barely hear me as it is. And there is no way they're being paid enough to deal with this kind of thing.

By: TwoStride

TwoStride — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:13:17 -0800

...And the communications VP has deleted his twitter account already. I like my baristas and my local Starbucks is far, far more diverse than either of the local indie coffeeshops I also frequent. This is still a totally hamfisted, stupid idea.

By: Countess Elena

Countess Elena — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:15:39 -0800

We already have open, impromptu conversations with strangers about race. They're called newspaper comment sections. I do not wish to see one opened between a barista who is forced to do so and a rando who hasn't had caffeine yet. Punches will be thrown.

By: wenestvedt

wenestvedt — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:16:28 -0800

I wonder whether Disney will let them do this in the Starbucks stores at Disney World. Because if there is a collection of employees who it would be more awkward to discuss race with, I think only prison guards come in above Disney Cast Members.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:17:28 -0800

Oh, c'mon, it's easy to talk about race with complete strangers. You just start with the words "I'm not racist, but" And proceed from there. What could go wrong?

By: hellojed

hellojed — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:17:33 -0800

"Start the conversation" is also the phrase that, when uttered in a certain dead language, starts the ritual that will end the earth.

By: Frayed Knot

Frayed Knot — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:19:19 -0800

OK, at first this seemed like a well intentioned but horribly conceived idea. But the Communications veep deleting his twitter account? That raises this to Grade A Performance Art.

By: themanwho

themanwho — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:19:27 -0800

If I want to have an uncomfortable conversation about race with my drink server, I just go to Dairy Queen and order a Moolatte.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:20:28 -0800

> Oh wow, this might actually be the worst idea on record. It could have been Solo printing this slogan on the side of those red beer cups.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:22:32 -0800

This actually harks back to the significant role in opening a space for civic discourse that the coffee-house performed in C17th and C18th Europe. I find the almost universally negative response in this thread interesting. I suspect it's in part because Starbucks has become so radically "uncool"--this is your Dad trying to get hip to the latest issues. I suspect there would have been a very different--and warmer--response if some indie cafe somewhere had taken to writing "Race Together" on all its coffee cups. I'd be interested to know what black Starbucks "partners" actually felt about this program before all the negative publicity. Were they instrumental in making it happen? Did they feel it was something being pushed on them by a clueless white management or by clueless white co-workers?

By: entropicamericana

entropicamericana — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:23:35 -0800

Hey, the Communications Veep quoted Whiskeytown in his Twitter profile (before he deleted it), he can't be a total knob.

By: TwoStride

TwoStride — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:25:20 -0800

Yoink, if Starbucks were going to offer itself as, say, a space for weekly/monthly discussions about race that were organized by community members, that'd be one thing. It's entirely different to force this into the middle of what's supposed to be a quick business transaction.

By: a lungful of dragon

a lungful of dragon — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:26:58 -0800

Eh, I suspect most Jezebel consumers and writers probably avoid extended, uncomfortable eye contact with baristas.

By: almostmanda

almostmanda — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:27:26 -0800

This isn't as uncomfortable as McDonald's asking people to pay with hugs and dances, but it's pretty close. It's definitely worse than the local Sonic requiring the intercom person to end every transaction with "It's been an honor to serve you!" Please, just let me pay for my coffee leave with as few corporate-mandated pseudo-niceties as possible.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:28:22 -0800

Based on what friends have told me, I suspect this will cause a lot of Asian, Australasian and Polynesian people to avoid Starbucks like the plague.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:28:28 -0800

It's entirely different to force this into the middle of what's supposed to be a quick business transaction. I think their idea is that it will prompt ongoing discussions between customers. I don't think it's meant to be exclusively discussions between baristas and customers. The idea is that the campaign at Starbucks becomes a catalyst for a wider social discussion--and the USA Today handout thingie injects some specific content into that discussion. Is that likely to solve racism in America overnight? Of course not. But I can see that it might, conceivably, do more good than harm.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:30:37 -0800

I admire but do not share your optimism.

By: Gelatin

Gelatin — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:32:17 -0800

This awkward misstep reminds me of McDonalds' recent Pay With Lovin' fiasco, which invited their underpaid employees to encourage customers to dance or call their families in lieu of cash.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:32:56 -0800

They should do a cross-promotion with Cold Stone Creamery and "encourage" their servers to sing about race .

By: anthill

anthill — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:34:54 -0800

"Welcome to Costco, I love you"

By: bleep

bleep — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:35:15 -0800

I think their idea is that it will prompt ongoing discussions between customers. I don't think it's meant to be exclusively discussions between baristas and customers. Nothing in the articles talks about conversations between customers. The barista has the option to start a conversation with a customer - that's the only thing that's been described.

By: The Master and Margarita Mix

The Master and Margarita Mix — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:35:15 -0800

Eh, this RaceTogether is just smug but clueless liberals doing the thing that smug but clueless condescending "educating" that a certain kind of rich, insular, white liberal in America always likes to do. It sucks that the psychology behind it is actually what drives what passes for the social "left" in America, and it's also part of why there's not much in the way of an actual economic left anymore, but it's gone on for a very long time and it's not new. The Open Source Boob Project, at least for me, at least cured me forever of any tendency I ever had towards Geek Social Fallacies, or really the psychology underlying Geek Social Fallacies. So thanks, creepy neckbeard losers, for making me realize it's totally cool and okay to judge you for being creeepy neckbeard losers, and also okay to make highly accurate snap judgements about you based on your chosen appearance.

By: naju

naju — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:40:53 -0800

I get the premise: the mere gesture of being open to talking about race (or "starting the conversation", sorry) is capable of absolving you of the actual hard work and messiness that is required in combating endemic, structural injustice. It's the bland, misguided, corporate "Awareness with a capital A!" as signaling and branding, rather than anything even remotely intended to have an impact. This sort of thing makes me break out in hives.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:42:51 -0800

The Starbucks across the street from where I work is full of smug entitled old rich white people who would probably riot if anything unduly delayed their douche-tastically complicated coffee-based beverage orders or snapped them out of their self-satisfied bubbles. So I'm looking forward to this.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:42:54 -0800

Nothing in the articles talks about conversations between customers. I watched the video, which frames the whole thing as working as a "catalyst" for a wider social discussion. Obviously from the point of view of "what will Starbucks concretely do" they can't mandate any kind of customer-to-customer interaction. But in terms of "what does Starbucks hope the effect of their actions will be" they're explicit about them generating wider discussions in the community at large.

By: Rustic Etruscan

Rustic Etruscan — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:43:14 -0800

The disgusting implications for Starbucks's workers aside, I liked the take I saw from Adam Johnson, a blogger for FAIR:

.@Starbucks marketing gimmick reinforces notion that problem is lack of dialogue & "understanding" rather than a oneway legacy of oppression To paraphrase Chris Rock: America doesnt have a "race" problem, we have a white person problem. Starbucks PR stunt forgets this key point

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:43:49 -0800

This ultimately strikes me as a marketing campaign to get more people of color to visit Starbucks (which is probably seen as a pretty 'white' place), but they fundamentally misunderstand their audience. It's like some executive was looking at his twitter feed like "what do black people like, hmmm..... I know! They love talking about racial issues! Let's just do that!" That's not even to mention the obvious ludicrousness of the idea of anyone having a serious conversation about racial issues because of a hashtag scrawled on a cup, much less having that conversation with their barista in thirty seconds. It's not a "catalyst" for anything but marketing for Starbucks, and it's amazing to me that anyone could take their statements at face value on that.

By: GenjiandProust

GenjiandProust — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:44:12 -0800

I'm fairly friendly with my local Starbucks' staff, and they are moderately racially diverse, and anything beyond a quick joke while they are filling my order would feel like I was stealing their time. I'm all for education on racism, but expecting baristas to do it on top of their other jobs is... not a good plan is the polite way to say it.

By: TwoWordReview

TwoWordReview — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:44:39 -0800

The snarkgasm over on #NewStarbucksDrinks was also thoroughly delicious. Oh my God! Latte from a Birmingham Jail is just brilliant.

By: Renoroc

Renoroc — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:45:50 -0800

Brew the right thing

By: naju

naju — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:47:01 -0800

.@Starbucks marketing gimmick reinforces notion that problem is lack of dialogue & "understanding" rather than a oneway legacy of oppression All Lives Matter: Corporate Edition

By: xingcat

xingcat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:49:17 -0800

It just strikes me as tone-deaf on so many levels, beginning with the fact that we're asking the people who are the bottom of the economic ladder in this corporation to "start the conversation," when they're the ones who are literally doing all the rest of the work, as well.

By: GenjiandProust

GenjiandProust — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:49:25 -0800

This is going to make the people who ask for a tall blond even more self conscious than they already are, isn't it?

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:49:45 -0800

I get the premise: the mere gesture of being open to talking about race (or "starting the conversation", sorry) is capable of absolving you of the actual hard work and messiness that is required in combating endemic, structural injustice. Was anyone holding Starbucks to doing that "actual hard work" before? Will any of the (fantastically small number of) people who were now say "oh, o.k., you're cool" as a result of this policy? This seems a pretty bizarre reading of the policy to me. Where is this immense pressure on all US corporations to do "the actual hard work and messiness that is required in combating endemic, structural injustice" coming from? What are some of the other signs of large US corporations dodging this persistent demand by demonstrating that they're willing to "start the conversation"? So far as I can see, most US corporations are doing everything they can to ignore the issue of racial injustice in America. And so far as I can see, Starbucks has done precisely the opposite of dodging "hard work and messiness" in floating this new policy initiative.

By: RobotVoodooPower

RobotVoodooPower — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:51:59 -0800

The Walgreens employees are required to say "Be well" to you when you check out. It's a little Logan's Run.

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:52:52 -0800

This sounds like a bad pitch for Mitchell and Webb.

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:53:09 -0800

policy initiative You mean marketing campaign, right?

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:53:56 -0800

This is going to make the people who ask for a tall blond even more self conscious than they already are, isn't it? I guess it's lucky that "long black" is an Australasian term.

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:55:02 -0800

That's not to even mention how funny it is to continue treating this as an honest attempt to "discuss race" or "open the conversation" when the executive responsible blocked a bunch of people of color when they questioned this (terrible) idea and then closed his twitter account entirely.

By: nicodine

nicodine — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:55:31 -0800

We don't need conversations. Conversations inevitably devolve into "what about reverse racism" and "but I didn't own slaves!" People need to shut up and listen to learn about what it's like to be a racial minority in America. This could be better. Maybe if corporate had decided to print out little mini pamphlets or coffee sleeves to hand out with these coffees. Stuff like "Here's why Black History month is important," "Why 'positive stereotypes' are harmful," "Just go read this Ta-Nehisi Coates article already," etc. Something that takes minimal added time and doesn't put the onus on the employee.

By: The Card Cheat

The Card Cheat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:56:09 -0800

If I were King of the World one of the first things I would do is decree that no company shall force its front-line employees to engage in any manner of scripted banter with the public. Under penalty of catapult.

By: jaksemas

jaksemas — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:56:20 -0800

This is going to make the people who ask for a tall blond even more self conscious than they already are, isn't it? Or a tall black eye.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:56:34 -0800

As a way to grab a few weeks of mindshare in their target demographic this is a pretty clever if cynical way to do it. It only comes across as tone-deaf and exploitative to people who weren't going to go there anyway, so hey, nice one.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 11:59:38 -0800

Oh wow, the Communications VP deleting his twitter is just.. it's amazing. I'm actually laughing. It just strikes me as tone-deaf on so many levels Plus it's just all kinds of fucked up to force your employees--many of whom may well have either ugly views about race, or have been the recipient of same--to have a conversation with your customers, many of whom may well etc. Their job is to sell coffee and be relatively pleasant about it. Not be the forefront of a marketing campaign masquerading as social conscience. That's the problem here. As a corporation, if Starbucks wants to have an effect on racism, start looking at hiring policies, not mandating employees to act in ways that are totally orthogonal to their actual jobs.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:00:49 -0800

You mean marketing campaign, right? I'd be interested to know what Starbuck's marketing people had to say about the risks/rewards of the campaign. If you were an advertising company and a major US corporation came to you and said "help us grow our market share" how likely would you be to say "I know--force people into an uncomfortable conversation about race relations in America!" I mean, I'm sure that there was discussion about helping to brand Starbucks as "cool" and "caring" and so forth, but I find it frankly rather weird that this is simultaneously being read as obviously a PR disaster and obviously a cynical marketing ploy. The very obviousness of the PR difficulty of this (which clearly Starbucks expected--you can't watch that video and not see that he recognizes that he's buckling in for a bumpy ride) would seem to negate the notion that this is also a smooth piece of marketing pabulum. I mean, we all know how easy it would have been for Starbucks to make some big announcement that they're giving so many pennies per cup to, say, university scholarships for POC and put together an updated "We'd Like to Teach the World to Sing" TV slot. Asking people to actually talk about race seems like a million miles away from that. It's the opposite of "let's slickly control our brand identity" and instead inviting precisely the kind of discomfort and angst we're seeing manifest in this thread.

By: codacorolla

codacorolla — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:00:59 -0800

One of the funniest things about this, for me, was how sneakily devoid of any real politics this whole stunt is. Note that they want to "talk about race," and not "talk about black people being murdered by a legacy of racism in American police forces." They can appear progressive without taking any actual stance on the issue. Even if you take their effort in good faith, and not as a cynical marketing ploy to advance a safe and boring lefty persona for marketing reasons, it frames the problem as being solved by merely having people talk it through - as if it were a mix-up about a parking space.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:03:14 -0800

I'd be interested to know what Starbuck's marketing people had to say about the risks/rewards of the campaign The real marketing campaign is the media coverage of this. General wisdom is: get more people thinking about your brand, and sooner or later they will walk into your store.

By: ShawnStruck

ShawnStruck — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:03:26 -0800

yoink: I suspect it's in part because Starbucks has become so radically "uncool"--this is your Dad trying to get hip to the latest issues. I suspect there would have been a very different--and warmer--response if some indie cafe somewhere had taken to writing "Race Together" on all its coffee cups. Nah, it's because one of the first signs of gentrification in many neighborhoods is a Starbucks, and the company is trying a feel-good-does-nothing initiative that doesn't really tackle anything they themselves have contributed to. Speaking of contributions, Starbucks donated and supported a "Hunt For Justice" event with Darren Wilson as the key speaker and have been as silent as churchmice about it.

By: Huck500

Huck500 — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:07:06 -0800

The Walgreens employees are required to say "Be well" to you when you check out. It's a little Logan's Run. If I owned a ubiquitous retail establishment I'd make all my employees say, "Be seeing you!" along with the encircled eye gesture... I'll never own a ubiquitous retail establishment.

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:08:02 -0800

I hear this in Floyd the Barber's voice. Ooh, let's talk about black people behind their backs. Ooh. Good idea. Ooh.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:10:56 -0800

the company is trying a feel-good-does-nothing initiative Again, how is this that? How is "have an unstructured conversation about race relations in America" a "feel good" proposition? We all know what "feel good" anti-racism looks like, we're surrounded by it all the time--the gauzy TV ads that show a utopian world of generic pan-racial harmony etc. Do you think anybody involved in this initiative at Starbucks was thinking that this was a version of that? Do you think anybody sat down to talk about this and said "no, there's no way inviting Americans to talk about race relations can lead to any kind of bad feeling"? I mean, this isn't like a slogan that had a double-meaning they weren't hip enough to know about or something; the idea that talking about race relations is an invitation to angst and argument is centuries old in the US. I can buy all kinds of criticisms of this endeavor (although I also think it's impossible to demonstrate without running the experiment whether the net effect of something like this is positive or negative), but the ones being offered by most people in this thread just don't make sense on their face.

By: fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit

fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:11:26 -0800

The various reactions to this promoted tweet by Starbucks are why we probably can't have nice things. Everything from "why are you asking your lowest-paid workers to do this" to "you liberal scum can die in a fire." I wonder how many racists are scraping off their "guns and coffee" bumper stickers as we speak?

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:14:32 -0800

Ooh, let's talk about black people behind their backs. According to this Starbucks pdf, about one quarter of Starbucks employees are POC. The various reactions to this promoted tweet by Starbucks are why we probably can't have nice things. Everything from "why are you asking your lowest-paid workers to do this" to "you liberal scum can die in a fire." I wonder how many racists are scraping off their "guns and coffee" bumper stickers as we speak? It seems that Starbucks have taught the world to sing in perfect harmony!

By: [insert clever name here]

[insert clever name here] — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:14:40 -0800

The Walgreens employees are required to say "Be well" to you when you check out. It's a little ~~Logan's Run~~ Demolition Man.

By: If only I had a penguin...

If only I had a penguin... — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:14:47 -0800

So has anyone anywhere actually had a barista write this on their cup? I have to imagine that since this is optional, baristas are just ignoring it and doing their actual jobs.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:15:02 -0800

Imagine the discussion if a payday loan chain did something similar.

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:15:55 -0800

I find it frankly rather weird that this is simultaneously being read as obviously a PR disaster and obviously a cynical marketing ploy. I could be wrong, but I suspect that the key to this paradox is the amount of input they got from actual people of color. I cannot imagine a racially-diverse focus group where this idea would go over really well - maybe their market research told them it would be inoffensive at worst? That's about as generous as I'm capable of being about this idea. Either way, your argument seems to boil down to "if it was a bad idea, they wouldn't have done it," and you assume that these "conversations" are actually useful, so I doubt I'll be capable of convincing you. But really, what's "feel-good" about it is that "conversations" about race are basically meaningless wankery. I mean, I might have given them a little more credit if they'd at least said we need "conversations" about racism, but as it is, the idea is near-entirely devoid of content.

By: savetheclocktower

savetheclocktower — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:16:28 -0800

I... I just... ...want to know what the thought process was. Whether any of the people behind this had actually envisioned the content of the conversations they were encouraging their baristas to have with customers — and, if so, what they imagined would be said in those conversations. Either they didn't get that far in their thought process... or they did, and decided that wasn't enough to tank the idea. I can't decide which is worse. Even putting aside the uncomfortable economic/racial disparities between the baristas and their customers, this is a bit like throwing a big party and saying, "Amanda, meet Fred! Hmm, I've got to check on something in the kitchen, but you guys should talk about race!" before scampering off.

By: mullacc

mullacc — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:20:22 -0800

This kind of thing seems aimed at winning corporate social responsibility awards or rankings. Which, in turn, perhaps helps to keep SBUX in socially-responsible investment programs, or gives it an edge in campus recruiting, or helps with zoning boards concerned about gentrification, or a thousand other little ways that don't depend on the actual success of the initiative.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:22:17 -0800

Again, how is this that? How is "have an unstructured conversation about race relations in America" a "feel good" proposition? Because for white people, that's all it is. They get to be all "well we're having a conversation about race so I'm not racist" and feeling great about it while blithely ignoring the entrenched racism of the system, as exemplified e.g. by 25% of employees being POC, when POC make up ~37% of the population. One could also look at Starbucks C- and V-level; 19 people, 3 presenting as women, 2 apparent people of colour. See if you can guess without clicking the skin colour of the person in charge of marketing.

By: CrowGoat

CrowGoat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:23:35 -0800

95% of the *$ I've been to have had the no eye contact, call the drink, avoid any conversation beyond a pleasantry utterance barista. They just never engage at all beyond the perfunctory. The cashier, perhaps a little bit if there's no line....

By: naju

naju — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:24:49 -0800

I imagine this would give certain entitled white customers a license to engage whatever POC happens to be in the store. "Hey, I see you're Indian, so in the spirit of #RaceTogether, I have to ask: how come I see Indians mostly sticking to themselves on my campus? Also, don't arranged marriages clash with the ideals of diversity? Please, explain!" People of color have to deal with race in every other aspect of their lives. The least they can do is go into a fucking coffee shop and have a moment to themselves.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:25:33 -0800

This would probably be more interesting at 7-11.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:25:56 -0800

But really, what's "feel-good" about it is that "conversations" about race are basically meaningless wankery. I mean, I might have given them a little more credit if they'd at least said we need "conversations" about racism That seems parsing things pretty arbitrarily finely. I deeply, deeply suspect that you would not assume that, say, an event described as "a conversation about race" featuring Ta-Nehisi Coates, Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates must automatically be "meaningless wankery" because it wasn't called a "conversation about racism." Nor would you automatically assume that it would be "feel good." your argument seems to boil down to "if it was a bad idea, they wouldn't have done it," No, there are all kinds of things that are bad ideas for reasons that only become apparent in hindsight or which it takes some kind of abstruse knowledge to recognize as bad. But everyone in the thread seems to agree that it would have been almost impossible not to foresee that this would be a very rocky road for Starbucks to go down. It is quite impossible that there weren't people involved in the process who wouldn't have foreseen the very high probability of various kinds of backlash (and, as I say, it is evident in the video by Schulz that he can foresee potential storms a-brewing). And you can't simultaneously recognize that AND say that this is run-of-the-mill corporate feel-good pabulum. Those are inherently contradictory positions.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:27:34 -0800

This sounds like a bad pitch for Mitchell and Webb. Fuck me that is actually genius. Webb as the barista and Mitchell as the customer. W writes this on the cup and hands it to M. Awkwardness ensues. I don't even know what the dialogue would be and I'm already squirming with hilarious sympathetic agony.

By: alasdair

alasdair — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:30:56 -0800

I cannot imagine a racially-diverse focus group where this idea would go over really well Depends who is pitching the idea, I suspect.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:32:20 -0800

Also, people already take out their anger about whatever on service employees. Let's not add society's ills To the list.

By: el io

el io — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:33:46 -0800

I'm trying to imagine other socially conscience efforts large corporations could engage in to try to bring about discussion on important topics of our times. "Your Walmart clerk will be writing 'lets discuss the war against unionization in america'" "Your McDonald's clerk will be writing 'Lets discuss US military aggression and interventionist policies around the world'" "Your Duncan donuts employee will be writing "lets discuss police accountability and the killing of unarmed suspects" "You're Whole Foods employee will try to engage you in conversation about the threat of the dominionist and other theocratic movements in the US" ... Seriously though, I can imagine this ending in violence. There are undoubtedly racist employees at Starbucks, and bless their hearts, they've been smart enough to keep their racist views to themselves at their workplace (as they should), but now their employer is demanding they discuss this stuff. And asking their employees that POC to discuss this stuff seems pretty fucking unfair... Certainly some of their customers are racist, and this is just an invitation to say provocative things to someone who has to maintain a calm and reasonable demeanor during their (somewhat crappy) job. Finally, if you are a director of communications and delete your twitter account because you don't want to have the conversation about race that YOU STARTED, you really really need to look for a new job (and probably career).

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:33:52 -0800

Those are inherently contradictory positions. No they aren't, because I do not accept your assertion that "It is quite impossible that there weren't people involved in the process who wouldn't have foreseen the very high probability of various kinds of backlash". Given the way the guy immediately started blocking PoC and deleted his twitter shortly thereafter, I do suspect they were surprised by the negative response. I also think you could read some of the thoughtful comments here in this very thread about why "conversations about race" are basically empty gestures that do nothing to help people affected by racism, and further I would be very surprised if any of those people you listed would be at all willing to partipicate in a "conversation about race" that was paid for by e.g. Starbucks. But I'm done with the nitpicky arguments - bottom line is that this is a terrible, insulting idea that never should have made it out of committee.

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:37:26 -0800

I usually don't go into Starbucks, but now I'm tempted. The local Kroger just opened Starbucks inside. It's staffed, what I've seen, strictly by black people. I so want to them doing this.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:38:06 -0800

"It is quite impossible that there weren't people involved in the process who wouldn't have foreseen the very high probability of various kinds of backlash" It's actually really highly probable that (almost?) everyone involved in the process was white and shielded by privilege. And/or that any people of colour in the discussion were ignored, because see previous sentence.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:41:19 -0800

Do you think anybody involved in this initiative at Starbucks was thinking that this was a version of that? Do you think anybody sat down to talk about this and said "no, there's no way inviting Americans to talk about race relations can lead to any kind of bad feeling"? You'd think it unlikely, but then I've heard more out of touch things at my office. So who knows? At least they're out of touch with the vox populi, tho, or they would've known that this campaign could only bring down on them the kind of contumely that comes with being charged as wrong (and possibly evil) in several different directions all at once. Oh well. Good thing Starbucks has prohibited firearms. I am struck by this business fad for "getting deep." First McDonald's wants us to call Mom, now Starbucks wants us to talk about race. Maybe next Wal-Mart will want to have a talk about where things are going.

By: yoink

yoink — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:43:59 -0800

TIL ITT: white people in the US love talking about race and find it inherently comforting and "feel-good." Man, there's some egg on the faces of all these people.

By: emjaybee

emjaybee — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:45:00 -0800

I don't want to talk about race in Starbucks. I don't want to talk about anything in Starbucks. That's why I bring a book or a computer with me; for not-talking to people. I feel for the employees, though. Pretty sure they just want to do their jobs and go home.

By: codacorolla

codacorolla — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:45:29 -0800

TIL ITT: white people in the US love talking about race and find it inherently comforting and "feel-good." Man, there's some egg on the faces of all these people. I don't think you really understand the argument that you're participating in at this point. Maybe you should cool off for a bit.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:47:02 -0800

That's really, really uncharitable, yoink. The thing about having a 'conversation' about race is that for those of us with white skin, the notion of having a conversation is inherently privileged. For everyone else, it's not something to be talked about, it occupies every moment of the day. 'Conversations' serve to make white liberals feel like they're doing something, when what is needed is a whole bunch of 'STFU white people, listen to the people of colour.'

By: Don Pepino

Don Pepino — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:48:10 -0800

I'm supposed to get my cup with "Race together" on it and think, "How mysterious and wonderful, a new message to me from Starbucks! But what could it possibly mean? Wherefore am I to race? Together with whom? And toward what shining goal? O Starbucks, beloved mother of morning, how you do bring the fun! I must ask my barista to xplaaaain!" I bet the first thing out of my head once they comply with the latest playful corporate mandate--however that is even possible for them without dying of awkwardness--is going to be something about the idiotic way the twitterdeletion phrased the thing. "Oh. I thought it was an announcement of a treasure hunt or something fun. If you meant 'let's talk about race together,' then that's what you should have written. You see, in this context 'race' is a noun, not a verb. I know it can be confusing. English sure is a crazy language! But we'll all communicate better when we can all speak it properly, don't you agree?" At least their pay it forward thing was relatively harmless. Whoever came up with this has never worked behind a counter in his life.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:49:27 -0800

Maybe you should cool off ~~for a bit~~. ... with a refreshing Frappuccino®!

By: The Hamms Bear

The Hamms Bear — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:50:42 -0800

Franklin said some things Whitey wasn't ready to hear. Gob, weren't you also mercilessly beaten outside of a club in Torrance for that act? He also said some things that African-American-y wasn't ready to hear either.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:52:18 -0800

It's like an episode of The Tick in which he and Arthur have to get jobs at Starbucks to make ends meet, and he's all over the moon about getting to serve up steaming cups of social justice.

By: savetheclocktower

savetheclocktower — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:53:09 -0800

> And you can't simultaneously recognize that AND say that this is run-of-the-mill corporate feel-good pabulum. Those are inherently contradictory positions. I don't think this is feel-good pap. I think that Howard Schultz honestly feels pain about recent incidents, honestly does not know what can be done about it, and honestly wants to spur national conversation about race in the hopes that it will produce constructive outcomes. I'm pretty sure they knew this would be uncomfortable, though they were clearly unprepared for the manner in which it would be uncomfortable. But this is embarrassing to me because of what it assumes. It assumes Americans don't talk about race, or don't talk about it enough, or only talk about it to other people of their same race. It assumes that someone can make their morning run to Starbucks, be asked to discuss race with someone who is a part of that transaction, and feel good about it afterward, whether they choose to have that discussion or not. More broadly, it is good that Schultz has angst about Eric Garner and Ferguson and all that — it is right for anyone to have angst about these incidents — but it depresses me that the outlet for that angst is a corporate endeavor that has a hashtag. It's way easier for rich conservatives to achieve their political aims, because money is a great tool for perpetuating the status quo of inequality. Whereas the things that rich progressives want to achieve are much harder, and often entail large-scale persuasion and getting people to accept nuanced ideas. I'll hold the rest of my judgment until we find out more about this thing. But I'm cynical because Starbucks does want to make money, and I think their dedication to this idea doesn't go past the point at which it starts being a money-loser. I doubt they want their customers to associate Starbucks, consciously or not, with the idea that pain and suffering are still unjustly apportioned based on traits that were assigned to us at birth.

By: el io

el io — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:53:20 -0800

I think it's worth noting that Starbucks is a Seattle corporation. If Starbucks had started in Atlanta, no executive there would have thought this was a good idea.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:55:08 -0800

Plus. here's how the conversations will go: "Hey, let's talk about race!" "Ggrrrmmmpf CAFFEINE" "..." or "Hey, let's talk about race!" "They should go back where they came from" "..." or "Hey, let's talk about race!" "Racism is terrible, we need to get rid of it." "I agree." "Can I have my coffee now?" Like, there's literally no way in hell that this can go well for Starbucks. And they've successfully implanted their name even deeper into all of our brains, increasing the chances that the next time the 'need coffee' neurons fire, the word 'Starbucks' will be connected to it. So, as I mentioned above, win-win as a marketing campaign. Prediction: this shit is cancelled before the end of the week, Starbucks Corporate makes some big donation to activists, and everyone forgets about it. Instead of looking at themselves and how their corporate structure is contributing to--and benefiting from--systemic racism.

By: kmz

kmz — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 12:57:21 -0800

Hmm... is this all part of Phase Two?

By: boo_radley

boo_radley — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:00:04 -0800

George_Spiggott: "I don't even know what the dialogue would be and I'm already squirming with hilarious sympathetic agony." "Here's your caramel latte, what do you think about race, please?" "You want to have a conversation with me." "Yes." "About racing?" "No, about race. Race relations, sort of thing. It's a new metric from regional. We're getting secret shopped this week." "But I don't want that. All I want is a coffee with some milk and artificial caramel flavoring in it." "I know, I don't either, but it's more than my job's worth, I'll tell you that! So anyway... Could be good for ..." "Yes? Good for what?" "hmm... Race relations?" "But we're both Caucasians from Salisbury! Any conversation we have 'about race' is going to be inherently vacuous! Even if we did have that conversation, we wouldn't be advancing either of our understandings of the topic!" "Ah, yes, but what if you did meet an African American?" "I don't even have a passport!" "Oh, but suppose-- right -- suppose that person did? Hmm! You didn't think an African American could travel to the UK, did you? Oh, the black person would never travel! " "What? No! I just--" "GOD YOU RACISTS MAKE ME VOMIT" [David Mitchelling intensifies]

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:01:36 -0800

And they've successfully implanted their name even deeper into all of our brains, increasing the chances that the next time the 'need coffee' neurons fire, the word 'Starbucks' will be connected to it. Oh God. What if Starbucks is actually the basilisk?

By: LobsterMitten

LobsterMitten — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:01:56 -0800

[I know folks' intentions are good, but let's not get into "here's a racist thing someone might say", even in jest. Thanks.]

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:03:42 -0800

You aren't making Starbucks' job any easier LobsterMitten.

By: naju

naju — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:07:39 -0800

Atlanta-vs.-Seattle brings up the point that there are two concepts of "white discussion of race", and Starbucks definitely caters to the Seattle end of the spectrum. Starbucks the brand has always been aspiring to a sort of middlebrow vaguely-liberal bland yuppiedom, which is infused in every aspect of its branding, aesthetics, and marketing. That's their core market. They want the people who want to appear cosmopolitan, cultured, and conscious, but have no concept of that beyond "ordering something complicated at Starbucks makes me seem sophisticated." It's the same sort of person who reads the pamphlets at Starbucks about their environmentally-friendly commitments and actually takes it at face value / feels better about themselves as a conscious consumer. So it makes perfect sense that they cater to that person's idea of race: the person who wants to be a conscious citizen, but has no real inkling or desire for making steps towards that, beyond "Starbucks hashtag on my coffee cup." This hypothetical customer feels bad about what's going on in Ferguson, and wants to feel a little bit better while ordering a skinny vanilla latte (and accomplishing nothing, and engaging with no one). That's it. The majority of people will never do a single thing with this. The more oblivious sort of customer may take it as a license to be obnoxious and try to make a black friend, or try to bring up their white victimhood, or god knows what else. But for the most part, that blandly unthinking white liberal finance person at your corporate gig is just going to feel some ambient sort of consciousness-relief and then go on with their day, mission accomplished for Starbucks the entity.

By: JoeZydeco

JoeZydeco — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:13:23 -0800

The Walgreens employees are required to say "Be well" to you when you check out. It's definitely Demolition Man, except every restaurant is not Taco Bell yet oh wait.

By: ArbitraryAndCapricious

ArbitraryAndCapricious — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:14:25 -0800

I'm currently participating in one of those workplace wellness thingies where my office has a team and we're supposed to log our exercise hours and if we get the most exercise hours we get some sort of prize that none of us really wants. I just won a hilarious "healthy eating" cookbook that is sponsored by various meat and dairy industry groups and has pretty much no vegetables in it. Anyway, I'm getting all sorts of wellness-thingie-related emails urging me to come to free zumba classes and whatnot, so I'm pretty sure that if some barista handed me a cup with "race together" written on it, I would assume they were trying to get me to sign up for a fun run, not to have an earnest discussion of the case for reparations.

By: Deoridhe

Deoridhe — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:16:33 -0800

First McDonald's wants us to call Mom, now Starbucks wants us to talk about race. Maybe next Wal-Mart will want to have a talk about where things are going. I wonder if this is the corporatization of Twitter/Tumblr culture, where the emphasis is on powerful language and authenticity. There is a way in which corporations try to systemize what people do naturally with some kind of policy - I'm reminded of stories of the one employee who puts loads of cool buttons on her vest, and then three months later there's a corporate requirement for cool buttons on vests - and this seems like the same thing but additionally tone deaf because by definition you can't systemize authenticity; as soon as you make a concrete demand of everyone it ceases to be authentic. I suspect "you can't mandate our real feelings" is behind a lot of the intergenerational dynamics at play on Social Media.

By: msbrauer

msbrauer — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:20:32 -0800

I'd have thought the MooLatte was enough to stir up a beverage based conversation on race, and that came out 10 years ago or so.

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:28:21 -0800

i ordered a latte from starbucks this afternoon and there was a note on it saying 'rise together' and i tried to ask the barista about it but i couldnt understand what she was saying because she had a goofy accent and this weird mask on and what i could understand sounded like her telling me to imagine the fire and then some dude dressed like a bat jumped through the window and a lot of people got hurt so i guess im against this promotion extra stars on my starbucks card notwithstanding

By: zutalors!

zutalors! — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:31:19 -0800

I see you're Indian, so in the spirit of #RaceTogether, I have to ask: how come I see Indians mostly sticking to themselves on my campus? Also, don't arranged marriages clash with the ideals of diversity? Please, explain!" Yeah, and people already do this all the time without the #RaceTogether. I get it a lot at work and I'm just a white collar person with an Indian last name. I definitely feel like I have to go along with it despite not liking it because otherwise it's all "whoa! just asking questions, didn't mean to cause offense! Just trying to learn!" can't imagine if I were told i HAD to answer those questions in order to help people with their race issues.

By: el io

el io — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:31:31 -0800

robocop bleeding: It's a new corporate initiative to encourage a violent uprising in America. After the revolution, Starbucks wants to ensure that they can continue operations without issue. It's just meant to start a conversation.

By: The Ted

The Ted — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:32:55 -0800

I think that this is actually an interesting social experiment, I am also surprised at all of the hate, and I wanted to bring up some points that seem to have been lost in this thread: 1) The writing on the coffee cup, and the conversation about race, sounds like it is totally up to the barrista. It is possible that barristas are "encouraged" to start conversations, but I doubt that. I could be wrong on this point. 2) After getting a coffee cup with the saying written on it, it seems like consumers are free to ignore it. So, I don't think that anyone is being forced to discuss race. Before this initiative, I can't imagine any barristas feeling comfortable talking about race. After this initiative, I think that they are at worst as uncomfortable as they were before, and maybe one or two are slightly more comfortable. Most Starbucks locations aren't in major cities, and definitely aren't in neighborhoods where the problems of race are most evident. In my opinion, getting these customers to even think about racism today is a huge challenge, I'm glad that Starbucks is trying.

By: dialetheia

dialetheia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:37:53 -0800

I am also surprised at all of the hate I think a lot of the "hate" (read: disapproval, head-shaking, facepalming) is coming from the executive's response to criticism from people of color on twitter, which was to block a bunch of those people and then delete his account. Conversation: started!

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:38:09 -0800

el io: well forget that im not getting my coffee there anymore im told the mcdonalds near my work has a better cup of joe one dollar any size since they swapped out that yellow and red clown for the purple and green one everyone i know who goes there cant stop laughing about it

By: angrycat

angrycat — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:51:47 -0800

You know, I'm pro legalization of marijuana, but I can't help wondering if the people who dreamed this up didn't know that you rethink the ideas you came up with stoned while in a cold sober state

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:54:35 -0800

I can't wait to see what conversations Chik-Fil-A and Carl's Jr. want their employees to have with the customers.

By: bleep

bleep — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:56:23 -0800

I think a lot of the "hate" (read: disapproval, head-shaking, facepalming) is coming from the executive's response to criticism from people of color on twitter And also knowing what it's like to work on the front lines of a massive retail chain where being told what to say to customers is far more likely than being given a choice.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:58:24 -0800

It is possible that barristas are "encouraged" to start conversations, but I doubt that. I can see you have never worked in fast food or retail.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:59:20 -0800

I can't wait to see what conversations Chik-Fil-A and Carl's Jr. want their employees to have with the customers. #sodomytogether

By: mrjohnmuller

mrjohnmuller — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:03:53 -0800

"Welcome to Carl's Jr! May I take your order and opinion about abortions?"

By: Divest_Abstraction

Divest_Abstraction — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:12:19 -0800

starbucks wants to talk to you about race but does it want to talk to you about racism?

By: infini

infini — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:20:28 -0800

I read the whole thread. Will this be restricted to Starbucks on the mainland? Or will this have to be dealt with globally?

By: codacorolla

codacorolla — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:36:27 -0800

I really liked the Medium article that Divest_Abstraction linked to. Their second to last paragraph, especially:

The best and worst case scenario is Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz actually thinks this initiative is a real public service. The best because maybe it is not just evil corporate co-option and the worst because no adult human with every information delivery method available to him or her should think this simply about anything so demonstrably complex.

Which is why I would say that I'm not "hating" on this, although it is a dumb idea in my opinion, but rather legitimately confusing how such a doofy concept could make it to the public eye.

By: nicodine

nicodine — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:50:37 -0800

This Blavity article by Morgan DeBaun references the fact that Starbucks has indeed paired up with USA Today to put together pamphlet-type things. Hopefully that takes some of the weight off the employees. That said, seconding codacorolla: doofy.

By: ennui.bz

ennui.bz — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:54:53 -0800

By: NoraReed

NoraReed — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:06:50 -0800

Starbucks employees are forced to be nice to their customers to keep their jobs. The idea that anyone who will be perceived to be of lower social rank than the person that they are interacting with (as is the case in a customer service interaction) should be having conversations about race without the option of telling overprivileged fuckwads off and kicking them out of the store is just cruel. "Starbucks: whitesplain to our employees!"

By: mudpuppie

mudpuppie — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:34:43 -0800

I think this is probably well-intentioned -- or at least the ultimate, pie-in-the-sky results would be a good thing. We should be having a broader conversation about race, because nothing's going to change unless we do, and unarmed black boys/men will continue to be shot down by cops who will continue to get off without consequences until we start to have an actual, honest, realistic, and difficult conversation about how fucked up we are about race, and about how the US has been fucked up about race from the very beginning, and about how the US has never actually been not fucked up about race, and about how steadfastly most of the country is in denial about all that to this day. We need to have that conversation, and even talking about needing to have that conversation is a step in the right direction. For that to happen in the context of a necessarily brief business transaction is obviously ridiculous, and I don't see any way in which they could make it successful. That said, Starbucks is a company that, in its lifetime, has successfully conditioned millions of people to a specific new behavior, and that's a pretty impressive feat. Customers of any other food service establishment order a "small," "medium," or "large" drink. Starbucks has conditioned most** of its American customers, anyway, away from using the words we know best for 'small,' 'medium,' and 'large.' That's obviously not at the level of changing race relations in our country, but its also not nothing. Having a barista write some trite slogan on your coffee cup in an attempt to compel you to have a deep and meaningful conversation with, presumably, that barista, it just plain idiotic. But, I don't know, making an effort to educate people about our fucked-upness -- printing relevant facts, statistics, quotes, etc. on those cups -- could indeed raise awareness and engender conversation, and that would be kinda great. If Starbucks can get its customers to buy in to the counterintuitive and ridiculous language system it's constructed for its drink sizing, well, they know at least something about changing consumer behavior. I think they're trying to do a good thing, for reasons that I will assume are good, but sure they came up with a piss-poor proposal for accomplishing it. **"Most" American customers, I said, because I refuse. I want a MEDIUM drink, dammit -- the one that is smaller than the Large and larger than the Small. Every time I order a "Medium" drink, the Barista confirms with "one Grande iced tea" in a passive-aggressive attempt to condition ME too. I will not be conditioned, Starbucks! Look, it's annoying enough that the baristas feel like they have even *that* level of authority over my behavior/words while in the store. Don't put solving the country's race problems on them too.

By: entropicamericana

entropicamericana — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:55:29 -0800

thank you for your rant about zany size names at starbucks we are looking forward to your follow-up where you ask just what is the deal with airline food at least we were spared the "five bucks for a cup of coffee" spiel

By: NoraReed

NoraReed — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:03:25 -0800

yeah geez the barista isn't attempting to have "authority" over you, they are confirming your order, which is their job, their employer makes them do that

By: TwoWordReview

TwoWordReview — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:04:17 -0800

Venti is twenty!

By: freakazoid

freakazoid — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 16:30:05 -0800

Thank you Starbucks for yet another reason why I never buy coffee from you, and never will!

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:05:49 -0800

Oh my God! Latte from a Birmingham Jail is just brilliant. I read this one and died a little inside.

By: el io

el io — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:33:35 -0800

yeah geez the barista isn't attempting to have "authority" over you, they are confirming your order, which is their job, their employer makes them do that Also, they are probably explicitly told not to use the word 'medium', 'small', or 'large' to ever describe their beverages. They are, however, apparently given a lot more discretion on what kind of conversation about race they are going to engage with. < facepalm >

By: traveler_

traveler_ — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:51:47 -0800

yoink: I deeply, deeply suspect that you would not assume that, say, an event described as "a conversation about race" featuring Ta-Nehisi Coates, Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates must automatically be "meaningless wankery" because it wasn't called a "conversation about racism. Well, in "Against the 'Conversation on Race'" Ta-Nehisi Coates said

All you'll end up with is a lot of words, and a comment section filled with internet skinheads and people who have nothing better to do with their time then to argue internet skinheads.

And in "A Conversation on Race" (no, really!) Cornell West said

Do we have the resources to engage in not a conversation, but a real encounter? That's what I find even a bit strange. It's how do you have a conversation about suffering? You don't have a conversation about suffering, not unless, Malcolm X used to say you don't stab a man in the back nine inches and pull it out six inches and say let's have a conversation. ... And that's why I say to my friend and brother and fellow citizen, President Clinton, that the budget deal is the conversation on race.

I don't know very much about race in America, but I knew this was a dumb idea as soon as I heard it because I pay some attention to prominent black voices. And apparently, Starbucks doesn't.

By: threeants

threeants — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:18:44 -0800

Racial "dialogue" as fashion. As a social indicator, it's a positive thing that racial inclusion language apparently now does a better job of moving product than explicit racism does, but it's pretty laughable to expect a multinational to be given kudos for being fashionable. Nothing that hasn't already been said, but yeah, give your employees a living wage before you get on your damn high horse.

By: dry white toast

dry white toast — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:40:43 -0800

In the innumerable ways that this is a Very Bad Idea, can we talk about the name of the "campaign"? Not only does it demean the experience of those who have experienced racism, but it is atrocious use of the English language. Did they ask the VP communications' fifth grade child's English class to come up with the slogan? If not, then they should have, because fifth graders would slap down this drivel in five seconds.

By: His thoughts were red thoughts

His thoughts were red thoughts — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:57:30 -0800

Bonus cringe: CBS Sunday Morning's Nancy Giles accused Jay Smooth of 'co-opting blackness' while they talked about this issue, somehow missing that Jay Smooth is actually black. Jay played it, well, smooth.

By: under_petticoat_rule

under_petticoat_rule — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:47:16 -0800

"So has anyone anywhere actually had a barista write this on their cup?" I have, before I had heard of the campaign elsewhere. She is a person of color and was quite enthusiastic about it in a way that seemed genuine to me. But it ended up being a conversation about the idea behind the campaign and the way baristas are asked to implement it more than about race itself. The other employees present didn't seem to be as aware of it so she was explaining it to them and me at the same time. This was at a time when the store was pretty empty and there was no one else in line, so there was no danger of pissing off a bunch of impatient, caffeine-deprived people. This particular store has a very diverse team, and they all are very good at engaging with customers. It is not in a prestige location, just one of L.A.'s billion or so strip-mall Starbucks. So at least one barista has embraced the idea. I personally think it's a misguided campaign that will mostly backfire, but I wanted to share that experience since it's so different than the nearly unanimous expectations expressed in the predictable backlash. The young woman could have been faking her enthusiasm, but I don't think Starbucks pays enough to get that caliber of acting from their employees.

By: Joe in Australia

Joe in Australia — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 23:46:19 -0800

Bonus cringe: CBS Sunday Morning's Nancy Giles accused Jay Smooth of 'co-opting blackness' while they talked about this issue She recovered amazingly well, and the other hosts were very generous. But the look on their faces ...

By: emptythought

emptythought — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:11:41 -0800

Basically, this seems likely to force Starbucks employees into really uncomfortable conversations, and I bet that falls most heavily on employees who are people of color. This seems like a terrible idea and like an invitation to create a hostile work environment. I don't really understand what they were thinking. + Their job is to sell coffee and be relatively pleasant about it. Not be the forefront of a marketing campaign masquerading as social conscience. That's the problem here. So i read the entire thread. The only comment i've seen that even comes close to how fucking awful this probably truly is for the people who work there is norareed's: Starbucks employees are forced to be nice to their customers to keep their jobs. The idea that anyone who will be perceived to be of lower social rank than the person that they are interacting with (as is the case in a customer service interaction) should be having conversations about race without the option of telling overprivileged fuckwads off and kicking them out of the store is just cruel. "Starbucks: whitesplain to our employees!" I worked at a not-starbucks large chain coffee shop in seattle during college. We were pretty much exactly like starbucks, but made fun of starbucks as if we were better because what the fuck else are you going to do? The corporate totalitarianism was INCREDIBLY strong. Everything was monitored, everything was bugged, and there were gigantic books of training and rules you were supposed to follow that no one ever read all the way through. An example of how fucking like, east Germany it was: the jukebox unit that played in the store music was basically just a DVD player. Except it monitored if any of the buttons were pushed, or if any cables were disconnected, or if an unauthorized disk was put in. It wouldn't just refuse to play if those conditions weren't met, it would self destruct burning some kind of internal e-fuse and cease to work entirely. The company would need to come out and install an entirely new jukebox unit, and the offending person would be fired for destruction of company property. Everything was run this way. People no one liked got fired for eating sandwiches they were taking down to the garbage can. People got in trouble for not having exactly the right width or slightly too baggy of black slacks. People got fired because they got too many complaints from the woman who would only accept drinks made by women(and of course, there were also men who did the reverse). Stuff like this would get introduced and you would be given a guide of exactly how you were intended to talk about it. There were secret shoppers, upper management would randomly stop by, security tapes would be randomly reviewed, and there were insufferable customers who speed dialed/emailed corporate in perpetuity if anyone wasn't perfectly chipper or engaging all the time... so that they could get an apology and a free $25 gift card or whatever the fuck corporate was handing out, over and over. This is much MUCH more shitty and insidious than it sounds. It's essentially saying "here white people, have a conversation about race with someone who can never be mean to you about it or make you feel bad about it! ask as stupid of questions as you like, you'll always get a positive comforting robotic response because anything else will result in punishment for the employee!" I would use a harsher word than cruel, honestly. This is like, torturous. And it's doubly gross because it's exactly the kind of training wheels smiley face sticker #1 good job kind of squishy conversation about race most "i'm not racist, i'm liberal and i support the environment!" white people want to have. It's beyond even being the disney channel version. It's like, the kidz bop version. This makes me like hulk smashingly angry, having worked at a place like this. FUCK this fucking guy.

By: emptythought

emptythought — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:18:50 -0800

You know, I'm pro legalization of marijuana, but I can't help wondering if the people who dreamed this up didn't know that you rethink the ideas you came up with stoned while in a cold sober state This is actually a running joke among my friends. If you go to one of the weed retail stores here(and the medical dispensaries were the same way) it's a shocking number of like, golden retriever and minivan suburban soccer mom/middle class business dad types. And these are the people who run companies like this. They just have fancier minivans/SUVs and slightly bigger houses a few blocks closer to(or on) the lake. And they're all getting stoned now, along with all the 20/30 something microsoft/amazon/google/etc guys. The joke so far had been that we're only a couple years out from like, the Microsoft Surface Connected Buttplug with Windows Azure Cloud™, or the Amazon Alexa remote fleshlight/dildo set, or a google nexus vaporizer or something... You know, "what if we made a quadcopter that delivered a hot dog directly in to your mouth whenever your smartwatch sensed your blood sugar dropping" "Oh DUDE we could do veggie dogs too!". But i didn't even think about all the shower thoughts ideas that are going to come out of the more generic corporatey shops like this. This is way worse because it's just like... poorly thought out, maliciously so. It isn't even funny, like any of those could be. It's like, mundanely bad stoned idea... not silly bad stoned idea. I guess that's what happens when you reduce the impulse control of really boring people.

By: NoraReed

NoraReed — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 00:31:53 -0800

those comments are good and you should feel good

By: adso

adso — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 01:15:45 -0800

What bothers me most is not so much that it's an empty, feel-good marketing ploy that doesn't actually get at the true sources of racism, inequality, power, etc. That in itself is awful, but really isn't all that much different from pretty much every corporate gimmick that tries to inject some "social responsibility" bs into its marketing. What's truly odious is the fact that it forces employees to risk putting themselves in harm's way, and then doesn't even grant them the right to retaliate if the interaction goes sour (I'm sure Starbucks baristas have been fired for far milder offenses than rude language). Yes, some people pointed out that using the hashtag on cups to start a conversation is optional for baristas...but what you need to realize is that nothing is *truly* optional when you are a low-wage, disposable employee, and I can see a lot of baristas reluctantly doing this to ensure they're in good standing with the boss and just don't want to be perceived as 'difficult' or not getting into the Starbucks spirit of racial dialogue. Secondly, emotional labor is *exhausting*. I've worked a few service jobs. You can see close to a thousand customers in a day. You're tired, you're sweating. You're trying hard not to mix up orders. It's loud. There's something unpleasantly sticky at the bottom of your shoe. You're starting to panic a little because you can't remember if you accidentally gave that last customer a $20 in change instead of a $10 and you need to find a spare moment to surreptitiously recount your drawer cash to make sure you're not short. And if you are short...well, maybe you have an extra $10 in your wallet you can quietly slip into the register so you don't get accused of stealing. And while mentally you're keeping track of all these little things, you need to make small talk with customers who range from nice to indifferent to downright diabolical and you have no idea what might set them off. If you're not smiley enough, they might tell your manager you have a bad attitude. If you're too smiley, they might tell your manager you were being snarky (both have happened to me). So to make things easier, most conversations run on a kind of bland yet friendly autopilot. Chuckle at their joke, make a congenially affirmative comment, then send them on their way so you can discretely recount your cash to calm your palpitating heart. And in the midst of this, they're asking these baristas to start a conversation about literally THE most painful and toxically-charged issue in American society today...no, just no.

By: desjardins

desjardins — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 06:49:04 -0800

I've decided that if anyone writes this hashtag on my cup - and they seem anything less than 110% enthusiastic about it - I'm just going to give them $10.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 07:58:23 -0800

And in the midst of this, they're asking these baristas to start a conversation about literally THE most painful and toxically-charged issue in American society today...no, just no. This is what kills me about it. Have they coached their baristas on what to say? I can't imagine. Have they counseled them on how to respond to a customer's responses? What if the customer says something truly stupid? Does the barista correct them and risk giving offense, or just maintain the pained rictus of a false customer service grin and carry on? What if the customer says something really toxic and offensive? I'm quite sure most responses that would occur to a normal person would be off limits to a Starbucks employee. So what are they supposed to do? I'd be fascinated to know what guidance has been given to them, if any. This is a shitfest of an idea.

By: flippant

flippant — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:09:55 -0800

The other day, a cashier at the local super market asked me if I knew what a Champagne Socialist was. No context at all; I suspect it was meant as banter. It was surprisingly uncomfortable being asked a question like that—the reply to which can kick off social and/or political arguments—by someone I didn't know and hadn't ever seen until that moment. #ClassTogether? Considering how uncomfortable that was—Where is he going with this?—I can't imagine how deeply uncomfortable impromptu questions about race would be.

By: angrycat

angrycat — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:44:25 -0800

They're discussing this on the Brian Lehrer show now.

By: octobersurprise

octobersurprise — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 09:31:38 -0800

The other day, a cashier at the local super market asked me if I knew what a Champagne Socialist was. "Do I know what one is? Darling, you're looking at one!"

By: Freyja

Freyja — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:37:58 -0800

This is why diversity in the conference/board room is vital. Not for moral feel-good reason, but because the old guard management class has become so disconnected from the new realities of the global marketplace that they are actively dangerous to the bottom line. Had any POC been invited to the conversation on this conversation on race, the #racetogether idea would have been laughed out of the room before the last slide of the Powerpoint. I recently had to explain why #raceface was not a good hashtag to use to solicit fan pics for a Furious 7 campaign. When it was proposed to a room full of all white, all middle-aged boring normos it was unanimously LOVED, but our diverse and Internet-savvy social team saw the problem right away and killed it, lest we spend weeks moderating blackface lulz.

By: el io

el io — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:40:53 -0800

"The other day, a cashier at the local super market asked me if I knew what a Champagne Socialist was." A Swede at a New Years Eve party?

By: Don Pepino

Don Pepino — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:08:46 -0800

My poor beleaguered town has this grocery store suddenly, "Lucky's." They're out of Colorado, where apparently people have to fight their way to their cars every morning through huge piles of drifted money. Infinite money to spend sourcing different-every-week enticing locally produced consumption units; the loss leaders flow like water; sumptuous lookfeels all over the store; and liberal catnip blaring at you from every angle everywhere you turn: e.g., "For every tote bag you bring from home instead of using one of our disposable bags, we will give a dime to an orphan! Imagine! Three totebags, thirty cents to your orphan!" Et cetera. So Lucky's has a bar from which they dispense different-every-week locally brewed IPAs and ales for the low low price of $2/pint so that you can stroll through the store getting plowed and buying artisan comestibles. I am not going to lie: this is a hell of a lot of fun. But if you try to tip your bartender, as you will, not being Satan incarnate, the money will not go to the bartender. The money will go into Lucky's's special charity fund. Every few months or so, Lucky's employees have the delicious privilege of deciding which charity to send their tip money to. So basically Lucky's is taking away my ability to do the decent thing. They are making me participate in their PR fakery. This kind of thing makes me want to twist somebody's head off.

By: amorphatist

amorphatist — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:05:39 -0800

So Lucky's has a bar from which they dispense different-every-week locally brewed IPAs and ales for the low low price of $2/pint so that you can stroll through the store getting plowed and buying artisan comestibles. I am not going to lie: this is a hell of a lot of fun. WTF? There's a Lucky's Market about a mile away from me, how is it possible I did not know this? Sorry about the bartender not getting a tip and all, but this is amazingly exciting. * Note: "Lucky's" as seen in some parts of California, is not the same as "Lucky's Market".

By: amorphatist

amorphatist — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:13:46 -0800

This Starbucks thing is all mad loco. Did anybody think for a second how this would work in practice? Did the mgmt team do some role-playing or shit? First thought popping into my head: how does the barista decide which customer to "engage" with? Do you pick the white guy because he's the one who probably needs it the most? Or the other way about: if the barista talks to the lad in front of me and the gal after me, but not to me, does that mean she thinks I'm racist or too scary to engage? Eeeeh. I don't really go into coffeeshops a lot, but I would be full-on leery of going into a Starbucks now. AWKWARD

By: zutalors!

zutalors! — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:28:09 -0800

As a woman of color, I automatically feel like it would make people feel free to play the "Where are you REALLY from" guessing game regardless of whether I were employee or customer in the scenario.

By: amorphatist

amorphatist — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 12:35:39 -0800

Wait, I've figured it out! Here's how it works: this is so uncomfortable for white customers that - for once in their lives - they actually get a taste of what it feels like to be POC. In that sense it's kinda genius.

By: angrycat

angrycat — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:55:10 -0800

now that NPR is on this story, I keep hearing the words: Race. Together. Race. Together. Race. Together. Are the implied words (let's talk about) race together? And what does that mean, talk about race? Like, race like observational, a la 'there is an isolated group of Inuits that you might want to talk about'? I mean, given the historical context, it seems like the implied words should be (let's talk about how cops disproportionately gun down black kids because of their) race. Together, let us discuss how shitty white people have been. I'm looking for a grammatical answer, is what I'm saying.

By: Don Pepino

Don Pepino — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 14:43:38 -0800

Race out of Starbucks together, never to return? amorphatist, I hope your Lucky's has a bar! It's the greatest ever. I punish them for their iniquities by only buying the top-of-the-flyer loss leader item, which is always some premium delicious fruit or vegetable for ridiculously little money, and beer. Sometimes I don't shop at all. I just go in and get a couple of pints and sit on one of the comfy couches and watch the shoppers.

By: amorphatist

amorphatist — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:44:59 -0800

Don Pepino, apparently my Lucky's (Boulder) is the original, so it damn well better have the beerz! I don't know what the other Lucky's are like, but ours is kinda weird... there's like three different buildings: the supermarket, the "bakehouse & creamery", and the cafe. I've never actually been in the supermarket, but that will change, oh how that will change!

By: ArbitraryAndCapricious

ArbitraryAndCapricious — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 18:27:50 -0800

Awkward discussion of race occurs during discussion about awkward discussions of race

By: rmd1023

rmd1023 — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 19:56:05 -0800

Maybe next, Starbucks can encourage their customer-facing employees to have to discuss the Israel/Palestine situation while serving people who haven't had their coffee yet. I sort of assume there's some black folks working for Starbucks who have injured themselves from the level of facepalm involved here.

By: needs more cowbell

needs more cowbell — Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:10:07 -0800

"Race. Together. Race. Together. Race. Together. Are the implied words (let's talk about) race together?" Honestly, I'm a barista and when my coworker and I were shown the stickers we could put on customers' drinks (on Monday right as we signed in for our shifts) both of us initially thought it was promoting a running festival or a race that raises money for some good cause. (Did no other store get stickers? We weren't even told anything about writing on cups, we just got stickers we could use. Which no one did, because... well, I don't think I need to explain that.)

By: kagredon

kagredon — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 17:56:48 -0800

The weirdest thing is that there was no one with both the clout and the basic social intelligence to say "Maaaaybe let's rethink this." I'm not all that surprised that there's no one at the top of Starbucks's PR/executive machinery who (a) is non-white and/or (b) has ever worked a service job, but I guess I thought maybe they'd at least have close friends/family who might fit one of those.

By: NoraReed

NoraReed — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 18:47:53 -0800

It's a little like the Evil Overlord advice of keeping a five-year-old around to point out failures in plans, except with having someone with the basic sense that comes from not having ridiculous piles of privilege, instead of a child.

By: emptythought

emptythought — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 22:16:37 -0800

Honestly, I'm a barista and when my coworker and I were shown the stickers we could put on customers' drinks (on Monday right as we signed in for our shifts) both of us initially thought it was promoting a running festival or a race that raises money for some good cause. Yea, when i first heard of this i thought it was going to be something like those silly bud light ads where they put someone in a ferrari and drive them around then make them play life size pac man or bungee jump or other shit where the tagline is "downforwhatever!" or something. Like, if you got one of the magic cups you'd suddenly turn around and there'd be an arrow pointing and you'd have to run some crazy obstacle course with other customers to win some ridiculous thing like a vacation or an ipad. Are you listening starbucks? I'd totally climb through a mud pit full of coffee grounds for a macbook. I had to climb through a pit of coffee dust and grounds last night anyways to run some cable. Why couldn't they just have done something silly but not awful like that? Make people wrestle in a giant fake blender full of frappucino over the keys to a lamborghini full of starbucks giftcards! Racetogether! they should just hire me if they're firing that dunce. Within a few weeks i'd have drake shooting office workers with a firehose of iced mocha on tv, like that scene from UHF. I'd hire Eric Wareheim and David Lynch to direct ads. They have so much money. Buy a giant fucking laser and draw the logo on the moon.

By: save alive nothing that breatheth

save alive nothing that breatheth — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:20:15 -0800

An image of a Starbucks questionnaire on your personal race relations. Personally I hope this campaign helps bring about racial harmony in America.

By: Rustic Etruscan

Rustic Etruscan — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:41:02 -0800

Jeb Lund/@Mobute in Rolling Stone: We Went to Starbucks to Talk to Baristas About Race

Sincere or not, Starbucks and "Race Together" are part of broader corporate policy of telegenic issue acknowledgement that tries to ward off inconvenient bottom-line responsibility for improving the status quo or redressing injustice. It's not even new. If you were watching football games in the early 1990s, you could hear soft-voiceover narration over Chevron ads of beautiful scenes of unspoiled nature: "Do people still care about halting wetlands drilling operations to rescue four pelicans they found nearby? People do." Fuck off, no they don't. Every time those ads aired, the treads of a Chevron front-end loader were probably backing over a nest of sea turtle eggs while a guy in a hard-hat looked up from pouring ammonia directly into a well and said, "People do what now?" What the ads were saying was, "You don't need to environmentally regulate us. We're not like the Exxon Valdez people." Like the sixteen-year-old son of a Goldman Sachs executive intersectionally confronting his wealth, race, gender and orientation privilege: "I'm already correcting it! I'm looking in the mirror and hating myself so hard!" And if that seems cynical to you, consider what a billion-dollar corporation like Starbucks didn't do with its tremendous resources to address race in this country. It didn't eat a tiny loss on profits and designate one employee per store to collect signatures for a petition to restore all provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It most certainly didn't task employees with engaging customers in conversation about the virtues of collective bargaining, labor rights and the tremendous power employers have to interfere in workers' lives and coerce behavior — all issues that would likely provide more direct material benefit to the lives of racial minorities and working class Americans of all colors than some airy bull-session about what it's even like to be different, man.

By: dirigibleman

dirigibleman — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:02:13 -0800

And it's over.

By: feckless fecal fear mongering

feckless fecal fear mongering — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:47:27 -0800

Well, I was partly right.

Schultz said Starbucks plans more "Race Together" activities, including efforts to expand into urban neighborhoods,

So, I'm really curious to know whether the use of 'urban' there is a dogwhistle from Reuters or from Schultz. If the latter... dude. The amount to which you're not getting it is nearly enough to form its own civilization.

hire 10,000 "opportunity youth" over the next three years,

What does this actually mean? Underprivileged? If so, that's a good thing. Then again, I'd believe this wasn't a cynical marketing ploy to counteract the bad press if a) it ever happens, b) they had announced doing so as part of the whole 'race together' thing, and c) hadn't then said:

and produce advertising on the campaign with Gannett Co.'s (GCI.N) USA Today.

By: codacorolla

codacorolla — Sun, 22 Mar 2015 14:46:13 -0800

"We leaned in because we believed that starting this dialogue is what matters most." Wow. What a sentence!