Starbucks to Provide Racial Bias Training to 175,000 Employees

Starbucks announced today it will close all of its 8,000 stores and its affilaiate stores for an afternoon next month during which more than 175,000 employees will undergo racial bias training.

The curriculum to be designed by nationally recognized experts and will be available for other companies to use:

The curriculum will be developed with guidance from several national and local experts confronting racial bias, including Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative; Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund; Heather McGhee, president of Demos; former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder; and Jonathan Greenblatt, ceo of the Anti-Defamation League. Starbucks will involve these experts in monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the measures we undertake.

I've met Bryan Stevenson and have listened to him speak several times. He is beyond top notch. Good for Starbucks, not only for recognizing the problem, but engaging in meaningful dialogue on how to correct it. And for offering to share the training with other companies. [More...]

Once completed, the company will make the education materials available to other companies, including our licensee partners, for use with their employees and leadership.

From the Starbucks CEO:

“I’ve spent the last few days in Philadelphia with my leadership team listening to the community, learning what we did wrong and the steps we need to take to fix it,” said Starbucks ceo Kevin Johnson. “While this is not limited to Starbucks, we’re committed to being a part of the solution. Closing our stores for racial bias training is just one step in a journey that requires dedication from every level of our company and partnerships in our local communities"..... "We will learn from our mistakes and reaffirm our commitment to creating a safe and welcoming environment for every customer."

< Hannity and Cohen | R.I.P. Barbara Bush >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is a new phenomenon? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    people in America paying $4, or more, for something that cost the company $.50? You should see what I get some antique collectors to pay for stuff I pick at yard sales and flea markets..

    If Starbuck's employees come away from the training with a broader, deeper, outlook and understanding of people and the country they live in, how can that be anything but a good thing?

    If Starbucks has a nationwide (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 08:34:06 PM EST
    or even regional problem with racism then it sounds like a good idea. If it was a single incident, I think it would lead people to believe the problem is bigger than it really is, and therefore, would be harmful to the country.  I'm waiting to learn more before before I decide which it is.

    I think Starbucks is probably thinking (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 08:46:48 PM EST
    beyond Starbucks. When Nazis and skinheads suddenly feel inspired to come out of the rotten woodwork and march in torchlit parades, the problem is bigger than most people thought it was.

    8,000 stores - only one incident? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    Not bloody likely.

    I think you have to consider what other forms of racial bias could exist there that didn't lead to arrests.  People of color being treated differently, asked to give up a table, not being waited on as promptly.  

    I have a feeling you will be hearing some stories about that.

    If the company wants to educate its employees, I don't understand why we would find fault with that.   People sometimes just don't know that their expressions, their body language, their unconscious bias, cause them to act differently.


    While I sat at a counter in a Manhatten (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 10:27:35 PM EST
    Starbucks about a year ago, a black man sat alone at a table. Two NYPD, whom I assume the baristas summoned, walked in and told the man he had to leave. He objected but eventually did so. Given how long some customers nurse a cup of coffee to use the free wi-fi, it made me wonder--wghat if the man had been looking at a "device."  

    If he had a "device" in his hand, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 09:36:55 AM EST
    ...might it be mistaken for a weapon?  

    Shot 8 times and then put in handcuffs.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 10:31:52 AM EST
    is that in the part of California where the Sheriff said it's more cost effective to kill, rather than injure or wound, alleged perpetrators?

    In this comment (#6) you have simply repeated (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 09:50:32 PM EST
    what you said in comment #1, even though Kdog (comment #2) pointed out the fallacious premise of your suggestion and completely answered it. Saying it again, while ignoring what he wrote about institutional racism being the norm in our country, not an occasional exception, does not make any more convincing your transparent attempt to minimize and excuse what the Philadelphia incident shines a spotlight on. And while I'm ranting, good on the white people among the customers in that Starbucks for speaking out in the moment against the rigid refusal of the Philadelphia police to use any common sense. Had a bunch of black customers done the same, they probably would have wound up under arrest also.

    I feel (3.50 / 2) (#18)
    by linea on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    That's harsh.

    It is McBain's opinion that absent a showing of similar incidents at Starbucks nationwide, a business shutdown and mandatory training for all employees is an overreaction.

    While I don't agree with McBain, it is a valid opinion and exclaiming `America has always been racially biased' really doesn't invalidate his opinion. I believe his perspective is closer to the `systemic' standard used by the EEOC when looking at businesses that may have violated Title VII's prohibition of racial discrimination.

    About the police, it seems to me the problem is that there isn't a good procedure in place by the city and police department on how to handle business loitering and thus it is being handled as criminal trespass. In my opinion, public-accommodating businesses should not freely use law enforcement as physical muscle simply to ensure profitable or efficient operations (like using law enforcement to drag a customer off an airplane).


    An overreaction.. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    like Starbuck's taking the initiative to educate their emoloyees could possibly be a bad thing? Really?

    Have you been paying attention to whats been going on in country in the last few years?


    Are you confused? (none / 0) (#24)
    by linea on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    What part of "While I don't agree with McBain" in this post or "I don't think a `stand down' for training is an extreme reaction on the part of Starbucks" in my previous post didn't you understand?

    Sorry, I misread what you wrote (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    Thank you!! (none / 0) (#26)
    by linea on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    It is very very nice of you.

    Eh, when you're wrong, you're wrong (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    It's not your business so not (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    Your call, or McBain's for that matter. It is not up to you to dictate or decide for those with skin in the game anything.

    I think it's wicked smart though and 100% business savvy and community building. Those three things seldom line up so expediently. It's plucking awesome :)


    I disagree with your rant (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 10:26:13 AM EST
    I also disagree with some, but not all, of what kdog said.

    I think you're speculating a bit too much on this one. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Maybe Starbucks will set a new norm on how to deal with similar situations.  Maybe they just opened a can of worms.



    For the life of me (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 10:52:03 AM EST
    I can't fathom what "can of worms" you're so worried about opening.

    What does the "worst case scenario" of racial bias training look like to you?


    Employee boredom and/or... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    ambivalence?  That's the worst case scenario I can think of.  

    Were I a Starbucks employee, I'd just be tickled pink at not having to deal with the god damn customers for an afternoon...woo woo!


    "worst case scenario" for some people... (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by vml68 on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    Black or white, people will be treated equally. White privilege will cease to exist.

    The can of worms of making (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    people more aware and sensitive. We can't have that.

    One potential problem for Starbucks (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    could be losing control of their stores...  Not being able to ask people to leave who aren't paying for anything.  Allowing non customers to use the restrooms.  That sort of thing.  

    I don't go to Starbucks very often but I have been in  stores or restaurants of other companies that don't offer the use of restrooms because non customers take advantage of them.

    There's also the precedent being set to allow protestors to shut down businesses because of something that might be blown out of proportion.  



    Too many (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    have historically thought racism was "blown out of proportion."

    Yeah, right.. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:43:31 AM EST
    and that the victims of it are somehow getting "special treatment."

    Because the right wing noise machine figured out that they can make hay by playing the wwc against minorities who get "free stuff."


    That sort of thing (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    Is the Starbucks business model though.  That's kind of the entire point of what everyone is up in arms about, and it's that model that Starbucks is trying to protect in this training.  They are an international brand - they probably don't want local managers interfering with that.

    Otherwise it's just overpriced average coffee.

    And as far as I can tell, there are no protesters involved here.  But frankly, that "precedent" is exactly why people protest. If you consider their issues "blown out of proportion" you are free to continue to do business there, regardless of the appearance of protesters.  What you can't do is determine whether an issue is relevant to someone else.


    What do you think the chances are (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    that had a white person been in Starbucks waiting for friends that the person would have been asked to leave or the cops would have been called?

    I don't drink coffee, much less overpriced coffee, so if my daughter and I were in the mall shopping and she wanted to go to Starbucks for a coffee, should Starbucks be able to ask me to leave because I was just sitting there with her and hadn't bought anything?

    And how many people are sitting in Starbucks right now, who came in at 10 this morning with their laptop, bought a coffee and have been occupying a table for almost 4 hours "working?"  Should Starbucks have a policy that you have to buy something at least once every hour you're taking up space?

    The last thing that should be discouraged is any effort or attempt by any business that serves the public to, at its own expense, educate and train its employees on any issue or matter that results in better understanding and ultimately better service and relationships with the public.

    If that's a can of worms, please let's open more of them.


    How does a training on (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 06:02:42 PM EST
    "Don't be a D*ck" harm the country?

    My husband is stoked about it. The Army does these trainings once a year on race and gender issues. Every soldier must attend. They look pretty healthy to me, they don't seem harmed bahahaha. And no matter how many times Trump brings up how hard it is to serve beside a trans soldier the vast majority respond with, "Uhhh no, zero phucks are given".


    Interesting (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    that the topic of raising consciousness of unconscious bias really brings out the conservative "concerns."

    A private company (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    decides to do trainings on unconscious race bias, and conservatives have a cow?

    My, they doth protest too much and doth out themselves.


    It's (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 04:06:29 PM EST
    a puzzlement that the free market fetishists hit the swooning couches when one of our corporate masters decides to do something that they consider politically incorrect.

    Conservatively-incorrect (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 04:08:31 PM EST
    I understand the PR move (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 03:13:22 PM EST
    but this seems like an extreme reaction.  Is this for the one incident in Philadelphia or has there been a documented pattern of alleged bias?  

    I try to avoid Starbucks but I'm not much of a coffee drinker.  What is the appeal.... is the coffee that good or do people really like hanging out there?

    The History of.... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    The United States of America 1776-Present is a documented pattern of racial/gender/ethnic/sexuality bias. If not humanity...

    It might be a bit extreme, but I don't see the harm. No doubt black dudes don't have the same shopping experience as white dudes far too often. Never mind law enforcement experience.

    I am ashamed by how many triple lattes I buy, though I generally hit the drive thru. But I suppose it's like hanging out at any coffee shop only pasteurized.


    I'm in Seattle (none / 0) (#3)
    by linea on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    I don't think a `stand down' for training is an extreme reaction on the part of Starbucks. Also, it seems to me the police do not have a very good procedure for handling business loitering.

    People spend hours in coffeeshops using the internet because sitting home alone is too boring. My neighborhood has coffeeshops on every block because there are so many single people here.


    Yeah, sometimes it's good to get out of the (none / 0) (#4)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 17, 2018 at 06:50:46 PM EST
    house.  But Starbucks?  I remember back in the 70s there was a local bookstore that had rare books and gourmet coffee. That was kind of fun. Maybe it's the same thing but it felt unique.  Going into Starbucks is like going into McDonald's... they all look the same.

    I guess it's impressive how a company convinced people to pay $4 for something they were basically getting for $.50.  I'll never forget the time I was having brunch with a friend in LA.  He had 2 or 3 cops of their coffee.  After finishing our meal we decided to go see movie or do something next but he told me he needed to stop at Starbucks on the way there to get more coffee. We weren't late but it seemed very strange.  

    go anywhere (none / 0) (#29)
    by thomas rogan on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    Many, many restaurants and bars have signs saying that restrooms are for paying customers only.  I asked to use the bathroom in the bank and was laughed out of the place, "white privilege" and all.  Even in the liberal town where I'm from.  What should happen, I suppose, is that EVERYONE should leave Starbucks if asked and Starbucks should politely ask all non-customer loiterers to leave and then call the police on people of all races who refuse the polite request.  Maybe that's what the training will be all about.
    How many people here actually own a small business that is open to the public?  If you encourage loiterers to use your facilities, then maybe say who you are and you can be designated as "sanctuary businesses" in your towns.

    Starbucks (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    Is not a small business.

    Obviously the CEO of Starbucks doesn't want their franchises kicking people out, or they wouldn't be having this training.

    If you want to run a small business where you laugh at people who want to use the bathroom - feel free to do so.


    The other side of that is (none / 0) (#32)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    if people are coming off the street to use the restrooms and aren't paying for anything, it becomes more difficult for paying customers to use them. Also, some cities have homeless population problems.

    Sometimes you have to kick people out.  I'm curious if Starbucks managers will be afraid to do that now.  


    here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 02:53:22 PM EST
    Starbucks corporate doesn't want Starbucks managers to do that.

    These aren't small independent businesses.  I'm not sure why that's not getting through.


    Do you understand (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 03:25:36 PM EST
    the Starbucks brand and business model?

    "Hanging around" is part of it.  Perhaps you disagree with that business model, (and you have indicated you do not get why people go there), but I think I would give Starbucks some credit in developing a major business--one that you do not like or understand.

    I give them credit.  Maybe overkill in your mind, but to me, it says they are serious about rooting out bias.  And, I would not be surprised if their clientele skews progressive, so getting the racism out is muy importante.


    Both of you are raising herrings. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    This incident was NOT about restrooms. And no one has reported that. They were waiting for a companion to join them. I find it quite rude if I'm meeting someone at a restaurant (yeah, Starbucks qualifies) and they order before I get there.

    But then, rudeness seems to be order of the day for the Bone Spurs right. Bone Spurs was a rude a-hole 20 years ago, continues the tradition today.


    I read otherwise Chuck (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Commissioner Richard Ross, who is black, said police received a 911 call from the Starbucks employees saying the men were trespassing. He said officers were told that the men had walked in, sat down, and then asked to use the restroom but did not buy anything. The employee denied their request, citing company policy.

    Perhaps, there's another side to this story.  I'd like to hear from the manager.  


    Here you go (none / 0) (#49)
    by linea on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 06:14:45 PM EST
    There manager called police and stated:

    'Hi, I have two gentlemen at my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave. I'm at the Starbucks at 18th and Spruce.'


    Which the 911 dispatcher (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    wrongly relayed as "a group of males causing a disturbance." But there are two issues here: (1) whether the Starbucks manager or other employees treated these black customers (yes, customers, although waiting for their third friend to arrive before ordering, which is entirely normal) differently than they would have treated white customers, including how they responded to the black customers' reaction to being asked unreasonably to order or leave; (2) whether the Philadelphia Police should have a more flexible policy concerning enforcement of the "defiant trespass" law, when a private business owner calls them to remove a member of the public who declines to leave voluntarily. Mechanically arresting on the request of the business-owner (which seems to be current policy) makes the police the agents of private discriminatory impulses and bad judgment.

    wrong flexibility (2.00 / 1) (#82)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    The police should carry out the law as it is written.  The men who were arrested would not fear for their lives if they quietly went along and followed police instructions.  They are welcome to file a lawsuit or complaint about discrimination after they leave the restaurant.  
    Chris Rock has a wonderful video about how not to get your a$$ kicked by the police.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb ... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 07:35:00 PM EST
    ... and take a wild guess that you're a white male.



    911 is for emergencies. (none / 0) (#69)
    by vml68 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    This is another issue I have with how this situation was handled.

    Not in Philadelphia, I don't think (none / 0) (#70)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    I think they tell you to call 911 for any "crime in progress," not judging whether it is otherwise an "emergency." I'm sorry to say that under current case law, it is pretty clear that the police had probable cause to arrest the two men. (I suppose that's why the Commissioner initially said the officers "did nothing wrong.") The issue, to me, is whether the responding officers should have used better judgment and declined to arrest anyway.

    Thanks, Peter. I did not know that. (none / 0) (#71)
    by vml68 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    I will make a note to not hang out in any Philly (not that I have any plans to be there anytime soon) establishment, unless I am buying something.

    Yeah. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 09:55:38 AM EST
    Those spurious black people can't possibly be telling the truth. Gotta see what the manager has to say.

    ABC interview (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 10:24:45 AM EST

    They really are VERY scary.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#60)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 10:59:49 AM EST
    One of the men, Rashon Nelson, said when he walked into Starbucks he immediately asked to use the restroom and was told they were for paying customers only. The other man, Donte Robinson, said he was asked if he wanted to get anything to drink but he had his own water bottle with him and refused.

    Neither men said if they told anyone there if they were planning on purchasing anything once the real estate guy arrived.  

    Robinson also said..."Rules are rules but what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong".

    We don't have all the facts yet but, so far, I don't see a bad guy here.  Sounds like the manager was more or less following company policy.  Nelson and Robinson just wanted a place to discuss a business opportunity.  And the police asked them to leave before making the arrest.  


    Keep digin (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    For them "facts" pal

    And what does ANY of this have to do with (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 01:46:10 PM EST
    why Starbucks' or any other businesses' employees would not benefit from racial bias training/education?

    Because this isn't just about the arrest.  Day after day, over and over, people of color experience racial bias in their interaction in the community that doesn't always lead to anyone being arrested.  

    If you care to, you can find anecdotal and documented examples of it, but I don't think you much care to know.  You seem determined to "exonerate" the manager so this whole racial bias training thing can be deemed unnecessary and irrelevant.


    You almost have to give (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 02:03:45 PM EST
    McBain credit. You know he's been clamping down hard on his tongue the whole time to keep from going into a "political correctness run amok" rant. It must take a lot out of a guy.



    There are several issues at play here (none / 0) (#64)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    Did this manager racially profile the two men, and if so, was it an isolated incident or somewhat common at Starbucks? I don't know.

    Does it make sense for Starbucks to close it stores for one day to basically tell its employees to think twice before asking people of color to leave?  It's obviously a PR move but I'm not sure the activists are going to cut them much slack.

    Are Nelson and Robinson sincere about wanting to make a change in this country or are they looking for a big paycheck?  My guess is both.

    What is proper etiquette for coffee shop patrons in regards to time spent vs. money spent? My opinion is people shouldn't go there unless at least one person in their group is going to make a purchase.  


    I do not like Starbucks coffee. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by vml68 on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    But, I have spent a lot of time in their stores in NYC without purchasing anything while waiting for my husband to get off work. I have never been asked to leave.

    When you become CEO of Starbucks you can kick me and other people like me out for not purchasing something.
    In the meantime, Howard Schultz gets to decide how he wants his business to operate.



    No, McBain, awareness training on (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 19, 2018 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    the pervasive societal problem of implicit bias is not "basically" or otherwise equivalent to "tell[ing] its employees to think twice before asking people of color to leave." I think you might actually find the research on this issue interesting, if you looked it up and dug into it with an open mind.

    I tend to do a pretty good job of keeping (none / 0) (#72)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    an open mind.  That's why I don't like to presume someone is guilty of something just because of negative media coverage.  In this case, the manager has not been treated fairly so far.

    As for Starbucks closing it's stores for one day... we both know the end result will be Starbucks employees being very hesitant to ask people of color to leave their stores. I don't think it will have much to do with implicit bias training.  It will be about people wanting to keep their jobs.


    Perhaps you might explain (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 10:14:49 AM EST
    Why a result of Starbucks employees being reluctant to ask people of color to leave their stores is a bad thing in your world?

    Howdy, earlier in this thread you said (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    what you believe is just not that important to me.

    Now, you're asking for my opinion?  Make up your mind.

    In my world, race would have nothing to do with deciding if someone needs to leave a Starbucks store. I'm not sure race had anything to do with what this manager did.


    I guaran-effin'-tee you (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    they'll still call the cops, or ask the person to leave, if the person is causing any kind of disturbance, or is harassing the other customers. Trust me.

    And if, heavan forbid, someone goes into a Starbucks to get out of the cold for a few minutes, or because they're having some sort of senior-moment bathroom emergency or whatever, as long as the person is peaceful and respectful, whats the harm to anyone?


    Based on the identities and integrity of (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    the nationally renowned, issue-oriented and lifetime-committed experts whom the company has retained to design or supervise the training, I have ever confidence that the training will have everything to do with implicit bias awareness and very little if anything to do with CYA company policy. I certainly don't "know" differently, as you assert. What is the factual basis you have to "think" otherwise?

    Money and human nature (none / 0) (#77)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 05:22:20 PM EST
    Starbucks is taking a calculated risk by losing money in the short run (closing stores) to save bigger losses in the future (protecting their image).

    Starbucks employees will want to keep their jobs in order to continue getting paid.  This is why they will error on the side of not asking people of color to leave their stores.  

    Since you seem to think very highly of implicit bias training, can you give a little more info on why you think it will work in this case? I'm obviously skeptical.  This article
    suggests other people are as well....

    Starbucks would be wise to check out the scientific evidence on implicit bias training. It appears to be the right thing to do but this training has not been shown to be effective, and can even be counterproductive.

    "When companies get in hot water over bias, their initial reaction is often to do some kind of training because it's something you can outsource and it's relatively easy to do and has good optics," says Dobbin. "The studies that look out six months to a year tend to be equally likely to show increased bias after the training as they are to show decreased bias."

    As I have alluded to, I believe this is about the "optics" of doing the right thing. I don't think you're going to change human nature with one day of training but you will get people's attention if they think their job is at risk.


    Ya (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    I read that earlier and wondered how long it would take you to quote it.

    There is a lot of ifs and maybes in that story and it does what Slate often does in giving contrarians an argument.  That should really be Slates motto.

    Here's the problem

    If you were taking this view in a vacuum it might be taken any way other than any regular reader of this blog will instantly take it.

    Because we all know if there is a story about people of color, if they are being gunned down by out of control cops or tossed out if restaurants for no reason, everyone knows you will be there, Johnny on the spot with your white concern trolling.  It's as dependable as the sunrise.

    And every time you do it you act so surprised and offended that anyone could possibly imagine there could be any other reason than you deep and abiding sense of justice in all things.

    As for your previous comment addressed to me, I don't care what you think but I do enjoy watching you dig.


    Your personal attack (2.00 / 1) (#79)
    by McBain on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 06:11:43 PM EST
    didn't really address my post but that's not a surprise.

    Because we all know if there is a story about people of color, if they are being gunned down by out of control cops or tossed out if restaurants for no reason, everyone knows you will be there, Johnny on the spot with your white concern trolling.

    I will often be there when people are being judged unfairly, regardless of race of gender.  You, and others in here, only seem to respond to certain posts. I've spoken out many times about black people unfairly charged and/or incarcerated.  I this case, I'm defending a female manager but no one will remember that when I'm accused of some anti woman bias in the future. What's really "dependable as the sunrise" in here is people letting their emotions override their intelligence.

    I don't care what you think, but I do enjoy watching you dig.

    Then who's the troll here?  

    People letting their emotions.. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jondee on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 06:33:26 PM EST
    that's become a regular meme on conservative sites, where people bring it up in between talking about Fake News!, the Deep State, and crisis actors..

    I haven't seen a lot of irrational thinking expressed on this thread, if that's what you're referring to by "emotion"..


    After 40 years of thinking of myself as (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 20, 2018 at 09:55:39 PM EST
    an anti-racist white person, I was invited to sit in on a two-hour session on implicit bias sponsored two years ago by our local federal court for the judges. It was startling and eye-opening. The part I was most taken aback by was learning aboaut a controlled study showing that law firm partners (including African-American partners) evaluate and edit associates' research memoranda very differently based on whether they believe the author to be black or white. It was one of the most memorable seminars I ever attended, and it has made me much more self-aware, conscious and self-critical in my interactions with others of all races.

    not just judges (none / 0) (#83)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 07:26:47 PM EST
    If a black defendant gets a public defender, do you think he'll want the Jewish guy or the black guy?

    Some people probably (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 08:31:43 PM EST
    wouldn't pick the black man or woman just because they'd assume there would be more negative bias toward him.

    Talk about a vicious circle.. (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    people being biased against black people because they assume other people are..

    The best guy (none / 0) (#85)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 07:58:44 PM EST

    Or gal (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 08:06:36 PM EST
    But yes, the client should want whoever was best. Word of mouth in the county jail would help inform them on this subject, too, if detained. I actually get a lot of my referrals by jailhouse word-of-mouth recommendations. So does my wife.

    Bias, being irrational, works in interesting ways (none / 0) (#87)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 21, 2018 at 08:14:09 PM EST
    Some black male clients, operating on feelings and their own implicit bias, would prefer the black male P.D., some the black female, etc. Some want a woman, and some refuse to cooperate with a female lawyer. Some P.D. clients might assume that Jewish male lawyers are better, and some have attitudes that they just can't trust a Jew. Some might think that Italian-American or Irish-American lawyers are generally best in front of juries at trial. I've seen and heard it all.

    I wouldn't ask to p*ss in a bank... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    if it was on fire....unless I could urinate gasoline.

    As for Starbucks, I think they want people to loiter...the longer they loiter the more drinks they might buy.


    They weren't "loitering" (none / 0) (#37)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    Every news story I've read on this incident has clearly stated that the two men told the Starbucks employee that they were waiting for someone. I have gone into restaurants HUNDREDS of times and been seated and not ordered a damn thing until my companion arrived. I stated the EXACT same thing. I was waiting for someone to join me. Had I been told to leave or wait outside, I can assure you that I would have left and never returned to that business. Probably would made a conscious effort to persuade others not to spend money there. If that's the business model you think restaurants should follow, "NO WAITING" then that's a money loser for sure.

    I saw the video where the white guy (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 03:41:01 PM EST
    told the cops that the two black guys were waiting for him, and I read that the two black guys asked to use the restroom, but I searched for and cannot not find this:
    the two men told the Starbucks employee that they were waiting for someone.
    Can you link us to it?

    No link (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    But I heard it too.  A couple of times yesterday.

    LaTimes said 4 days ago:
    Lauren A. Wimmer, the attorney for the pair, said her clients had not ordered as soon as they got to the Starbucks because they were waiting for Yaffe. While they were waiting, however, a Starbucks manager apparently asked them to leave.

    Wimmer said her clients told the manager that they were just waiting for someone, and according to People (Magazine), the manager called 911 to report the men for trespassing.

    I posted a link in my comment above (none / 0) (#44)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    mentioning a bathroom request.

    I'd like to know more about the initial discussion between the men and the manager. Did they explain to her they were waiting for someone?  If not, I think the manager might be getting more blame than she deserves.


    Yes McBain (none / 0) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    Like I said, according to multiple news reports yesterday they said they were waiting for someone.

    I'm sure I could find a link saying that, and I'm sure you could too, but what you believe is just not that important to me.


    To make a point really (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 06:05:31 PM EST
    I just searched

    "Starbucks waiting for someone"

    Try it.

    The first selection was SNOPES.  FTR, yes, they were.

    Two Black real estate agents were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks for waiting for a friend who showed up as they were being handcuffed. The police were called by a barista because the men hadn't ordered anything, yet.

    Many of the white patrons at the Starbucks wondered why they have never been arrested while waiting to meet someone for coffee.



    But did they specifically tell her they were (2.00 / 1) (#50)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 07:13:57 PM EST
    waiting for someone?  That's what I want to know Howdy.
     It should have been clear from my previous post. Your quote doesn't address that important question.  

    As for Linea's comment #49... I'd like to have more information than just the call to the police. I'd like to know the actual conversation she had with the men.  Kind of important here.  We don't want to rush to judgement.


    Goodness, I just don't know (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 07:26:38 PM EST
    McBain.  What to do?
    Oh!  I know! Let's search

    "Starbucks said they were waiting for someone"

    Oh!  Look at that,  they did.

    The two men had not ordered immediately upon arriving, as they were still waiting for Yaffe. While they waited for him, "a white female manager who was on duty at the time" asked them to leave, said Wimmer.

    When they said they were just waiting for another person to arrive before ordering, she phoned the police, Wimmer said.

    Buzz freakin feed


    He's waiting to hear what the manager (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    said, so he'll immediately know who's lying and who's telling the truth.

    Why on earth wouldn't (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 07:23:56 PM EST
    they tell the manager they were waiting for someone, when they were in fact waiting for someone who showed up?

    What would their motive be for not explaining themselves fully?

    Are you imagining some byzantine conspiracy for the purpose of suing Starbucks?


    They should have just (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 07:29:58 PM EST
    Done what they were told.  Like they are supposed to.

    I don't know Jondee (none / 0) (#55)
    by McBain on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 09:28:55 PM EST
    maybe they did tell her.  Maybe they didn't because they didn't feel they needed to give an explanation. I hope we hear from this manager and she tells the truth. Right now, I don't think she's getting a fair shake.  

    As always, I'm a little skeptical of early reporting.    


    My hope is that she learns (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 10:41:08 PM EST
    something truly valuable from the experience that she can carry with her and then gets another good job.

    I'm not a brand-her-with-the-scarlet-letter guy, generally.


    I Googled (none / 0) (#56)
    by linea on Wed Apr 18, 2018 at 10:39:05 PM EST
    I wonder if the corporate overlords are sending mixed-messages to managers by basing some part of the manager's income on store sales which may promote a `buy something or get out' attitude.

    Not an argument. Just an observation.

    The average salary for Starbucks store managers is in line with the rest of the retail world, but Starbucks store managers are paid more than just a base salary. Each manager is also paid an annual bonus based on store sales, stock bonuses based on company performance and they also participate in the company's profit sharing program. With all sources of income considered, the average Starbucks store manager makes an average annual income of around $60,000.

    Something I find interesting about this incident (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 24, 2018 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    is the man who asked to use the restroom had a scruffy beard and
    wasn't dressed very well.
    I wonder if the manager thought he was homeless? Where I live, people (especially me) dress casually when they go out.... shorts, sweatpants... but I don't know if that's the case in Philadelphia?

    I'd like to know what Starbucks policy/advice was for dealing with the homeless or people they thought might be homeless.  

    I don't know how scruffy (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Apr 24, 2018 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    the beard is. There's at least a couple of NBA guys with beards like that.

    I have friends in LA who look a lot more (none / 0) (#92)
    by McBain on Tue Apr 24, 2018 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    scruffy than him (unshaven, bedhead, hipster clothes) but that's LA.  Philadelphia might be another story. In general, I think race is overrated and clothing/grooming is underrated when it comes to sizing someone up as a potential customer or potential menace.

    Rashon Nelson walked into Starbucks not looking his best and asked to use the restroom.  Would he have been denied had he looked like he did in the GMA interview?  


    There are (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by CST on Wed Apr 25, 2018 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    A ton of hipsters on the east coast too.  Especially among younger people - which I would consider Nelson to be.

    Also - Philadelphia isn't Manhattan or DC, the style is a lot more laid back in general.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#95)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2018 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    And they keep selling me their parents antiques cheap, and I'm okay with that :)

    McBain's never seen a hipster :) (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 26, 2018 at 08:44:09 AM EST
    Nor had them off loading the family antiques they've inherited for a pittance hahaha because they want a different style :)