
Starbucks to Close All U.S. Stores for Racial-Bias Education - uptown
https://news.starbucks.com/press-releases/starbucks-to-close-stores-nationwide-for-racial-bias-education-may-29
======
tenpies
Can someone explain to me what Starbucks did wrong here? As far as I've read,
there were a pair of men loitering in the store for an extended period of
time. They did not purchase anything so this is the very definition of
loitering. The store was very busy and someone from Starbucks asked them to
leave. They refused. At that point, the same person from Starbucks called the
cops because they refused to leave.

The cops came, and eventually arrested them after they refused to comply with
instructions. They were taken to the police station, but Starbucks did not
intend to press charges so they were let go.

What am I missing here? What is the correct play for dealing with a non-
customer that refuses to leave your store?

~~~
pwinnski
When you're Starbucks, have marketed yourself for years as a "third place"
where people can hang out, and have a policy to not kick out people who aren't
causing trouble, and you call the cops on the two black men, but not on the
white people also sitting in the same store without purchasing anything,
you've done something wrong. Other customers were speaking up, pointing out
white customers sitting there without purchases, as the cops were leading the
two black men out of the store in handcuffs.

~~~
tenpies
I can buy that, but then I can't understand why they refused to leave.

There is an unwritten contract between any cafe and the public: purchasing any
item - even the tiniest coffee - and you also get the option of staying at the
cafe for a period of time. Refusing to leave, or to purchase something,
violates that contract.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _I can 't understand why they refused to leave_

Because they were being asked to leave on a discriminatory basis.

> _Refusing to leave, or to purchase something, violates that contract_

Attempting to enforce a contract with racial bias is illegal and, ultimately,
unenforceable.

------
aphextron
Unfortunately this isn't a Starbucks problem. This isn't something that can be
trained for. It is the culmination of 400 years of hardcore racism pounded
into the consciousness of western civilization that equates blackness with
criminality, and holds us in social bondage. What you're seeing here is just a
normal part of every day life for blacks in the US.

The Rastas have a word for this: Babylon. While it exists, no black person can
ever be free.

~~~
ben_jones
How do you feel about Starbucks denying access to homeless people in the same
way? There is a commonality in the way humans discriminate and I feel like its
a disservice to leave other marginalized groups out of this conversation.

------
jonnybgood
For context on why: [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/black-men-
arrested-wa...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/black-men-arrested-
waiting-starbucks-180416050337967.html)

------
adamrezich
All I have to say about this topic is: it's always interesting to see how
Starbucks manages to put itself in the news about once or twice a year,
because of some controversy... and they never end up being the bad guy!

------
bbg215
I find it highly unlikely that if this same scenario occurred with two middle-
aged white men dressed in chinos and dress shirts, we get the same ending with
cops being called and an arrest.

------
ben_jones
Are there any ways to tell if a corporation actually gives a damn or is just
pretending for PR or other selfish purposes?

~~~
mmanfrin
I have kneejerk reactions sometimes to actions like this, thinking "oh they're
just doing this for the PR", but I've recently start to consider what would it
take for me not to have this reaction -- and I realized that I would likely
have that just-for-pr reaction to any action they took, and I'm likely
entirely too cynical.

Closing 8,000+ stores for an afternoon feels like a sizable response, and I am
going to suspend my cynicism for this and recognize that they do give a damn
(even if it is influenced by PR).

~~~
rhizome
I doubt it will be for a whole afternoon. My bet is on a "webinar" mode:
1-2hrs closure, with with something like: 20min intro; 20min talking head
video; 20min "any questions?" They'll make new employees watch it and they'll
post it on the corporate website ("make available").

------
anon90
Does anyone else think the guys looked like homeless people and that
contributed to calling the police. Why weren't the guys at fault. They should
have just left the store. That wha a reasonable person would have done. I've
seen baristas ask white people to leave before and they've all done that.

~~~
orbitingpluto
Really, because the guy in the brown jacket had a incredibly coiffed beard? Is
that what made you think they were homeless?

Your sophistry is all about equating asking a homeless smelly white dude with
two perfectly respectable men waiting a couple minutes for their third to
arrive.

When you go out with someone to eat, do you order as soon as you arrive and
begin to eat even if the other person hasn't shown up yet?

~~~
anon90
I wasn't there in person so I can't tell whether they smelled or not and I'm
not a guy so I'm not an expert on beards and can't tell whether it's clean or
not.

In any case they should have left when they were asked to and just waited
outside like a normal person. I've seen baristas ask white people to leave and
all of them did without any issues. Why wouldn't those guys leave? Why did
they cause problems?

Isn't it unusual for guys to go out and about wearing sweatpants. I haven't
seen guys other than the homeless do that if they're not at the gym.

~~~
jonnybgood
> Isn't it unusual for guys to go out and about wearing sweatpants

No.

------
simonsarris
Some context for the incident here:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8cysu4/starbucks_will...](https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/8cysu4/starbucks_will_close_8000_us_stores_may_29_for/dxixmyn/)

The guys had ~20 minutes to leave before the cops showed up, and still refused
after the cops asked several times. Per the police commissioner:

> On 3 different occasions, officers asked the males politely to leave the
> location because they were being asked to leave by employees because they
> were trespassing. Instead, the males continued to refuse as they had told
> the employees previously, and they told the officers that they were not
> leaving. When the call was initially made the Starbucks employees had told
> the males that they were going to call the police and they said go ahead and
> call the police we don't care. So the police get there and they are
> confronted with the same type of attitude. They repeatedly told that they
> were not leaving. In fact, there's some alleged rhetoric about 'you don't
> know what you're doing, you're only a $45,000 a year employee' or something
> to that regard.

------
rdiddly
Foul-Mouthed Zen Master says: This is one of those problems (and there are
many) that the manager could've avoided by just not giving a shit. Racism for
example is nothing but giving a shit about something that doesn't deserve to
have a shit given.

Why even get involved with anything happening on the other side of the
counter? Take the money, dispense the coffee, collect your paycheck, and read
the community-college catalog so you can get the hell out of there someday!

If someone is genuinely "in the way", people will repeatedly jostle past them
annoyingly until they get the hint. It's a self-correcting system.

If someone is such a foul presence that they're driving away customers, that's
Starbuck's problem, and not really a big one for them either. You as the
manager, meanwhile, have _less_ to do because of it, not more; use that time
to read the community-college catalog.

If someone is actively threatening or harassing someone else, yelling at the
top of his lungs, or committing some other actual literal crime, THEN you call
the cops.

------
unethical_ban
1\. They typed "ceo" instead of CEO or C.E.O.

2\. Are all retail locations of all businesses now expected to let anyone use
the restroom for free? I do not know the specifics of this story other than
"black person tries to use the bathroom, isn't allowed, doesn't leave, gets
peacefully removed from premises". If a store doesn't let people use the
restroom for free, isn't that their prerogative?

~~~
mmanfrin
I'm confused by your 2nd point -- I think you have this confused with a
different story? Two black men were arrested while waiting for a friend in a
Starbucks, use of restrooms had nothing to do with this.

~~~
unethical_ban
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/starbucks-
arrest...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/starbucks-arrests-
racial-bias.html)

I believe you are incorrect.

Two men wanted to use a SBUX restroom without purchasing anything. I guess
they had to ask for a key or something? Otherwise how would sales intervene?
Anyway, they were told they weren't paying customers so they couldn't. They
then squatted and cops were called.

I really don't know the details, and it's easy to assume either or both
parties were asinine. Maybe they really were doing nothing wrong, or maybe
they were disturbing customers. No news I've read characterizes the incident.
In any case, even if an employee handled it poorly, it sounds like an
overreaction.

~~~
adamrezich
None of us know the details, but each of us has filled the void with "what
most likely happened" based upon our own personal worldview, so we can argue
about it on social media which conveniently spreads the story so more people
can see how virtuous SBUX is for taking such dramatic corrective action (all
SBUX locations closed on the same day, interrupting routine customer behavior
to make a point about how virtuous they're being here).

Does anyone else kinda just hate all capital-B Brands now, as they
increasingly pull this crap? Or is everyone else falling for it, actually
having their opinions about these Brands influenced by the grand public
gestures they make, spending tons of money on PR people to spin said gestures
in the most positive way possible?

Is there really a secret anti-black undercurrent in the management staff in
any reasonable number of SBUX locations, such that this grand gesture of
corrective action actually has any demonstrable effect on anything at all,
aside from making people think more positively about SBUX as a brand?

