Starbucks , Closing for Racial Sensitivity Training ?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (57 posts)
  1. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    But aren't starbuckster owners all intellectual elitists who are higher education careerists  ,  professionals , wall streeters , movers and shakers , apparently those attributes haven't trickled down to their managers  ?   8,000 stores closing for a day .  175,000 employees and now one employee causes millions of dollars of sensitivity training ?
    Simply a  P.C .stunt , does Starbucket have a race problem ?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Hope there is more to it than I understand.  So far all I get is that a couple of punks wanted to use the restroom and when denied began making a scene and refused to leave, whereupon the cops were called.  Unruly enough to get themselves arrested (don't know what for), but because of the color of their skin they should be given a "bye" for bad behavio.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Let's just say it wilderness ....if they were two old geezers the headline on the eighteenth  page would have read " Two vagrants arrested for loitering at local coffee shop ".  I've almost been there myself , I used to hang out with a couple old- fairly loud ex marines .

        Don't tell them I said that .

      2. Aime F profile image81
        Aime Fposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Wait, what? If you watch the video they are sitting there quietly not making a scene. The only person making scene is a white guy who gets close to the cops and yells about discrimination (and he was not arrested).

        Was there another video taken before the cops showed up where they’re being “unruly” that I’ve not seen?

      3. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Why do you refer to them as "punks"?

        "A Philadelphia Starbucks manager called the cops on two black men just two minutes after they entered and sat down for a business meeting, it was revealed Thursday."

        They were two entrepreneurs meeting a third entrepreneur to discuss a real estate deal. Please read the article and explain why you believe they are punks.

        http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.3942931

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks - more information is what is needed.  But just some observations:

          I do not believe the "2 minute" claim at all.
          Two people decide to use a store for their private business purposes, and when asked to leave reply "No, you're not stopping that <my business deal> right now." 
          Apparently they were there for quite some time, given that there was a time gap (and more than 2 minutes) between entering and the cops arresting them (after speaking to the manager).  Again, that was NOT their building nor their business office.
          Still haven't seen why they were arrested.  Trespassing?  Or something else?

          But, after reading your link, I will take back the "punk" comment (information really IS useful).  But I will not take back the insinuation that the men were in the wrong - they accomplished that when they refused to leave.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Well, I'm glad you realize that describing them as "punks" was....unwarranted.

      4. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, Wilderness, there does seem to be more to it than you initially understood, (I hope). I think you might be revisiting that "punks" description.

        Others here have posted various details, and of course Google, has a ton of info.

        Another, "of course," is that this is being played to the hilt by the "It's racism" crowd.

        The information I scanned doesn't indicate there was any kind of "bad behavior," or "scene's caused," by either the two men, or the Starbuck's manager.

        The one detail that causes me to ponder an opinion is the time line. Various sources have said it was anywhere from two, (stated here), to seven, (a CBS report), minutes between the time they entered and when the manager asked them to leave. That seems a bit quick based on the known details. Are there details we don't know? I have seen folks take that long just to decide what they want, much less get in line and order it.

        Does that Starbucks have table service? Why were they approached so quickly and asked for an order or told to leave? Was everything triggered by a simple bathroom request?

        A third "of course" is that the Starbuck's manager certainly had the Right to her actions. It was noted that the "bathrooms for paying customers" rule was store policy - in that store. It is equally true that the men were in the wrong for not leaving when asked by the manager, and the police, but, if the details are as they are being portrayed, I think I might have developed an indignant stubborn streak too.

        Further, I must be too "old school" to understand, but, nothing indicated the store manager wanted to press charges. And it didn't appear either man caused a scene - other than refusing to leave - when handcuffed, so why couldn't the police make a judgement call and just turn the guys loose outside the building? Why was a full arrest and eight or nine hours of detention necessary - unless there are details we don't know?

        Using a take-off from your line; there must be more to this than I understand, because by those known details, I think the manager was as wrong as she was technically wrong. As for the police, given today's environment, I think they did the job they are meant to do, and in an appropriate manner also .

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Have you heard the charges for the arrest?  I still haven't seen those.

          If (IF) the article PP posted is true that manager was indeed technically right but quite wrong to call the cops.  But when asked to leave the two men were at least as wrong to refuse - Starbucks is not their personal office space.

          I've done exactly what they did - use a coffee shop for a business meeting - except that I made a point of making a purchase.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            They were arrested for trespassing.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Maybe.  On the interview I watched last night they said they were never charged with anything at all, and never read their Miranda rights.  That the cops handcuffed them and took them to jail without giving any reason at all.

              They also mentioned that the cops repeatedly ask them to leave and they refused, which is in line with the trespassing charge and makes that charge quite reasonable. 

              All very odd to me.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Hi Wilderness, The only thing I found was that the two guys were released shortly after midnight when the prosecutor's office determined that Starbucks didn't want to press charges.

            I am also skeptical of the two-minute thing, but all accounts seem to indicate it was a quick decision on the manager's part.

            As being told, things just don't make sense - unless either the manager was following a racial bias, or, the two guys did something to portend a problem. Since that information isn't known yet - my jury is still out. Except for the protest and racial uproar part - that stuff is purely political and over-the-top by my perspective.

            I will add that I think the Police Commissioner's second statement is a bunch of hooey - forced by political pressure, shame on him. He had it right the first time; the police were just doing their job. They even called in a supervisor to make sure their actions were legit. I bet we can guess how his uniformed officers feel about his actions.

            GA

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Unless that real estate deal was deciding which store to rob, my suspicions lean towards racial bias by the manager.  But as you say it is only suspicion at this point - it is almost as likely that the two men (or just one of them) had a chip on the shoulder.

      5. ptosis profile image66
        ptosisposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        When I heard it at first I believed the cop on FB that the 2 were asked to leave 3x before the cops were called.  I was called an a$$h0le for that remark.

        Now the story is the cops were called 2 minutes within entering 'cafe' which doesn't fulfill the requirement of the loitering definition.

        I think perhaps you don't know what the definition of a 'punk' is.

        a worthless person (often used as a general term of abuse).
        relating to punk rock and its associated subculture.
        http://www.latimes.com/resizer/RDG3t-khduGNWRsYkixhak8cKrU=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/4MG765DZKRBZ5LRPWZ2UWRRZUY.jpg

    2. Aime F profile image81
      Aime Fposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      I actually kind of agree with you. I’ve always hated when one employee out of a large company causes mass outrage. Be mad at the employee, hope the company holds them accountable, and if they do then move on (and by “move on” I mean from boycotting/demanding things from the company - not necessarily “move on” from the greater issue).

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Agreed , the whole starbucks thing however is a play on P.C. and its so obvious.

        1. jackclee lm profile image81
          jackclee lmposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          agree +++

    3. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      The training serves as timely reminders to employees as to how customers are to be treated when they visit the store. Certainly cannot hurt.

  2. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 22 months ago

    Reagan believed in trickle down economics ,I believe that in some strange way the false narrative on racism created by the great P.C. president Obama  trickled down too. To an all too common belief in our youth that if your skin color is white then certainly you've got to be a racist  , they just haven't figured out that by such generalized and superficial assumptions ,  perhaps it is they who then show the traits of true racism?

  3. mrpopo profile image72
    mrpopoposted 22 months ago

    It's odd that the manager would call the cops in such a short time period. Could be racism, or an asshole/jumpy manager.

    It's also odd that the two entrepreneurs would rather be arrested for trespassing than continuing their business deal elsewhere, given that it could have "a positive impact on a whole ladder of people, lives, families." They allowed a mild inconvenience to escalate to arrests and national outrage. It doesn't make any sense to me to risk a deal they clearly valued for something so petty. The police gave them plenty of opportunities to leave.

    I can understand being indignant at the situation, but why did they make *this* the hill to die on?

    1. profile image0
      ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      More than likely in Philly , it was " Oh no , Here comes those guys that harass us constantly and never buy a thing , I'm  doing something this time "?

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        A possibility.  Were they steady "customers", simply using Starbucks as their personal office space but never paying for using that space?  That actually makes more sense than a manager that kicks out anyone with dark skin or that decided to pick on just that one pair with dark skin.

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Exactly , one more "blow something out of proportion "....P.C. in a liberal city .

  4. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 22 months ago

    Sort of funny, if I were with the young brothers, I probably would have suggested that we purchase something to preclude such an incident based on what I know about this society and the culture. Their mere presence would be intimidating to some and that much of the more retrograde portion of society has yet to evolve, taking the knee-jerk attitude of seeing every young black man as a "thug".

    The company, Starbucks, has a business model of ambiance as a sitdown place for one to gather ones thoughts, (free Wi-Fi) for example.  That is the experience I had when I dropped in. The fact that these men were hassled and intimidated just minutes after they arrived seems inconsistent with that model. If it were a couple of white guys, would they have been treated the same way? That is the question.

    If I owned the store, I could recognize the problem of loitering and people taking up seats without ordering something. But, if I applied such a policy, it would have to be applied to everybody in the same way. I don't see that the way that these men were treated as consistent with anything other than the standard racial bias, that continues to remain a thorn in our national life.

    The woman should have been fired for using poor judgement in elevating the issue to the city police. The city police needed to ask what is the basis of the stores complaint that the men were trespassing, instead of just cuffing the black men on the word of this lady.  Besides asking to use the rest room, how were they different than any other patrons?

    If I were among the men, I would have left when requested and filed a complaint regarding the store and its staff soon after.

    Yes, training is necessary, because too much of this 'lack of understanding' will have an adverse affect  as we see this as an affront to the black community in general and to black people in particular.

    Starbucks, starting from a progressive place of origin, is smart enough not to stir up that cauldron, because ultimately it will be a detriment to them.

    1. jackclee lm profile image81
      jackclee lmposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      It seems like you are the voice of reason here. I applaud you for recognizing this incident for what it is and how it could have been handled better.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      "If it were a couple of white guys, would they have been treated the same way? That is the question. "

      Indeed, that IS the question.  But while you have implicitly answered it with your first and third paragraphs, there is zero to indicate that your assessment has anything to do with reality.  You have no idea why they were asked to leave, outside of wanting to violate company policy, and no idea if white people are treated the same.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

        See if you cannot absorb the significance of this article, Wilderness.

        https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/20 … 521750002/

        It was about the men asking to use the rest room without ordering food or drink. I have never been to a restaurant, particular a Starbucks that ever applied such a rule.  If there was a prohibition against it, why did Starbucks fire the manager for applying its own rules? Would Starbucks really take on all of this "heat" if the rules were appropriate and fairly applied? What was their defense for the behavior? They offered none.

        So, there is plenty of reality there if you just removed your 'red blinders' and take a closer look.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          From your link:
          "If somebody is being disruptive or occupying very limited space . . . people would understand asking somebody to leave the premises,'' says Reginald Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania"

          And there is your answer.  Perhaps you need to absorb it yourself, for there is absolutely zero indication I could find in that link that gave ANY indication  (outside of unsupported insinuation) that race was ever involved.  That is your take, but again based on nothing but that the arrested couple were black, and that is no more enough to make that call than it is to remove them from the premises.  Not even your excuse that Starbucks would not "take the heat if it were not racist" is enough, for you once more have not spoken to Starbucks management and have zero idea of just why they are doing what they are.  My personal take is that they think it will create good will and more profits, not that they are concerned about racism no matter how much they give that impression.

          Reality does not come from assuming that no black person will ever do wrong or that every white person is "out to get them".  It comes from evidence, true and factual information that does not arise from assumptions.

          (And if you have never visited a store that uses that "bathroom" rule you haven't been in many small stores.  I've seen dozens of such locations with a sign in the window to that effect.  It is quite common in small establishments, and I've been asked to leave a very busy restaurant after eating a meal in order to free up the table.)

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            From your link:
            "If somebody is being disruptive or occupying very limited space . . . people would understand asking somebody to leave the premises,'' says Reginald Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania"

            Thanks for looking in...
            Yes, I know that but did that apply in this situation at Starbucks? Was being refused access to the lavatories part of company policy, really? Some other poster made mention of a white woman  waiting for her son for a hour in the store the previous day without ordering anything, do you think that they would have told her that she could not use the restroom?
            ----------------------------------------------------
            And there is your answer.  Perhaps you need to absorb it yourself, for there is absolutely zero indication I could find in that link that gave ANY indication  (outside of unsupported insinuation) that race was ever involved.

            The real test is whether this "policy" has been applied before and under what circumstances. The company is not defending it, why don't they say why it is there. Other articles indicated that white patrons don't recall such a restriction applying to them. So, conclusion do we come to, as a result?
            --------------------------------------------------------------
            That is your take, but again based on nothing but that the arrested couple were black, and that is no more enough to make that call than it is to remove them from the premises.

            Perhaps, you can equivocate forever and a day. But, this instance will put retailers on notice to recognize the danger of these kinds of incidents on their on public relations and subsequently their "bottom line". If it does that, then justice will have been served
            -----------------------------------------------
            Not even your excuse that Starbucks would not "take the heat if it were not racist" is enough, for you once more have not spoken to Starbucks management and have zero idea of just why they are doing what they are.  My personal take is that they think it will create good will and more profits, not that they are concerned about racism no matter how much they give that impression.

            In the face of the controversy regarding this event, why don't Starbucks step up to the plate and tell us all why they are doing what they are? You got your personal take, but I have mine as well. Too many are not terribly concerned about racism as long as they are not the recipient, but we will hit our adversaries in the wallet and perhaps that will get their attention.
            ------------------------------------------------------
            Reality does not come from assuming that no black person will ever do wrong or that every white person is "out to get them".  It comes from evidence, true and factual information that does not arise from assumptions.

            True. Racism is still a fundamental component in American life and to think that those that continue to practice bias and bigotry outside of their homes are non-existent is irrational in itself. I don't believe that there will every be enough factual data for YOU ever to acknowledge that; that this far from a color blind society.
            ---------------------------------------------
            (And if you have never visited a store that uses that "bathroom" rule you haven't been in many small stores.  I've seen dozens of such locations with a sign in the window to that effect.  It is quite common in small establishments, and I've been asked to leave a very busy restaurant after eating a meal in order to free up the table.)

            Oddly enough, I have only seen this kind of stuff in Hawaii, there are a lot of indigent people there and smaller restaurants restrict restroom use to paying customers. But, still, I have never seen anything like this in major chain restaurant retailers.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Without further evidence, I can only assume that ALL people are refused bathroom use, perhaps without extenuating circumstances (a 2 year old holding their crotch, maybe).  You will make the call based on skin color, but I refuse to.

              What conclusion, based on a single report from a single person that said a different day, with different circumstances and a different manager, had a different experience?  None at all...unless racism is already predetermined to be the cause.

              "In the face of the controversy regarding this event, why don't Starbucks step up to the plate and tell us all why they are doing what they are?"

              I don't know, and neither do you.  But our ignorance is not an excuse to make up a reason.  At absolute best we can only guess, and that guess is never a reason to come to a conclusion about some other matter.

              "True. Racism is still a fundamental component in American life and to think that those that continue to practice bias and bigotry outside of their homes are non-existent is irrational in itself."

              Absolutely true, and I have said so many times in spite of your next comment that I will never admit it.  BUT.  That fact is not a reason to predetermine that a specific person, in a specific instance, acted from a racial bias for no more reason than that a non-Caucasian had a negative experience dealing with a Caucasian..  Only the racists would make that call.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Without further evidence, I can only assume that ALL people are refused bathroom use, perhaps without extenuating circumstances (a 2 year old holding their crotch, maybe).  You will make the call based on skin color, but I refuse to.

                Then why does not the manager or Starbucks say that this is policy, instead of engaging in damage control for something where they did nothing wrong?
                --------------------------------------------
                What conclusion, based on a single report from a single person that said a different day, with different circumstances and a different manager, had a different experience?  None at all...unless racism is already predetermined to be the cause.

                "In the face of the controversy regarding this event, why don't Starbucks step up to the plate and tell us all why they are doing what they are?"

                I don't know, and neither do you.  But our ignorance is not an excuse to make up a reason.  At absolute best we can only guess, and that guess is never a reason to come to a conclusion about some other matter.

                You don't know? Your speculation is more out of line, for you to dismiss what appears obvious just because you will not consider it for your own reasons..... People who do not want to clarify for the purpose of clearing their name is more likely guilty rather than not. If you are not willing to establish your innocence, why should I presume that you are not guilty as charged? That is why the company is taking the heat and it is merited.
                --------------------------------------
                "True. Racism is still a fundamental component in American life and to think that those that continue to practice bias and bigotry outside of their homes are non-existent is irrational in itself."

                Absolutely true, and I have said so many times in spite of your next comment that I will never admit it.  BUT.  That fact is not a reason to predetermine that a specific person, in a specific instance, acted from a racial bias for no more reason than that a non-Caucasian had a negative experience dealing with a Caucasian..  Only the racists would make that call.

                If such is not the reason or explanation, why not clear it up? You say that you don't know why they don't clear it up for all to see and that their silence is not necessarily indicative of guilt. That is an excuse, a stretch, as it were.

      2. IslandBites profile image88
        IslandBitesposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Actually, that's what an actual witness asked herself...

        A "white woman", who was also there the day before and sat for an hour without ordering anything waiting for her son.

        Her answer: No.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          And of course because a single, unidentified white person says it didn't happen to her on her sole visit, with a different manager on duty during a different period of the day, means it was a racist thing.  Couldn't be that the men were there every day, mooching.  Couldn't be that the store was busy that day and needed a table.  Couldn't be that the guys mouthed off to the manager.  Couldn't even be that the manager got up on the wrong side of the bed and was grumpy that day.

          No, it was that they have dark skin, because it didn't happen to a specific white woman the prior day.   I would disagree that her experience proves anything at all. 

          When you have a large number (100?  1,000), of all races, experiencing sitting without buying under many conditions, but all with that manager, and either being asked to leave or not...then come back with conclusions.  It would help to know if those asked to leave that refused produced a 911 call, too.  But don't draw unwarranted conclusions from a single instance, or even a dozen.

          1. ptosis profile image66
            ptosisposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            If any of those assumptions occurred then the manager wouldn't have been fired and those 'what ifs' would be public knowledge by now.

            1. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Do you understand how the guilt complex of the liberal corporate crowd actually reacts to all things in the public arena ?  Fire somebody  first , avoid the wrath of the cannibalizing  media crowd now , worry about a lawsuit later , especially if its a white guy on the firing  line .
              Seems we have to wait for the end report .

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Really?  Managers are never fired in an attempt to manage public opinion or outrage? 

              We already know everything there is to know about what happened, the circumstances it happened under and exactly what happened and why?  And we know this without every hearing from the manager, the cops in question OR the other patrons or employees at the time?

              Can I borrow your crystal ball?  I want to buy a lottery ticket tomorrow.

          2. IslandBites profile image88
            IslandBitesposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Btw, her name is Melissa DePino in case anyone is interested...

            https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/16/opin … index.html

      3. ptosis profile image66
        ptosisposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Well I know one thing, if they were 2 white guys removed, there would've zero viral news  coverage.
        These guys were dressed well, but as we all know if a homeless person, nobody would be protesting.

        Three Starbucks locations in parts of Los Angeles with large homeless populations have recently closed their bathrooms to customers and noncustomers alike in recent months.

        ------------------------
        post, from a Starbucks employee, says:

        I'm sure if you work in a Starbucks in a city you get lots of fun homeless people. Some of my favorite regulars in our store:

        -the guy who sprawls out on the squishy chair, takes off his shoes, props his feet up on the end table, and proceeds to fall asleep, snoring loudly, until one of us have to go upstairs and ask him to leave, after which he checks his watch and says, "Oh! Look at the time! I was just leaving anyway."

        __________________________
        Seems Starbucks was correct to fire the manager who after 2 minutes called the cops on two clean looking docile dudes IMHO.

  5. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

    Since all that we can do, at this point, is speculate on the "truth" of this incident, I will add to that speculation with a couple questions, (or more), that I think should be considered.

    And since I think those questions might pertain to a perspective that doesn't include racial bias, (or hard racism), I will put my "Red Blinders" on before I start.

    As Credence2 noted, Starbuck's business model has been to foster an atmosphere of a gathering place. So why the "bathrooms for paying customers only" policy at this store? Two pieces I read indicated it is not a company wide policy, (and like Cred, I have not found it to be a common practice in hospitality places I have visited), so why was it policy at this Starbucks?

    Obviously, by asking that question I am inferring that non-customer loitering might have been a problem at this store. What other justification could there be?

    Regarding racial bias, it may not be germane but the two "primary" cell phone videos of the event show 4, (probably 5 counting one of the video shooters), white customers, (ok, light-skinned customers), and 2 dark skinned customers. There is no way of knowing, (from the videos), what other customers, or customer mix may have been there, but at least the videos show it was not an all white clientele.

    Does that have any bearing on the manager's "racial bias?" Obviously an unanswerable question. But, at least it shows this probably didn't happen in a lily-white environment, which probably also means it wasn't an OMG! Black people! reaction from the manager - maybe.

    Speaking of that manager ... How can a statement such as; "The woman should have been fired for using poor judgement in elevating the issue to the city police.", (sorry Cred - picking on the statement, not the poster), when so little is known about why the police were called? What if the bathroom policy and the manager's speedy response to this event were because this store did have a serious loitering problem? I am not implying they did, because I don't know, but if they did, should "that woman" still be fired for her actions?

    That point leads to another question, "Why such a speedy response to these guys, first by the manager approaching the table, and then by her quick call to the police?

    If there is any basis for questioning the "why" of the bathroom policy, and any thing to be drawn from the display of a mixed clientele in the videos, and no indication the two guys were causing a scene ... then why did the manager act so quickly in both her approaches - the table and the police?

    My perspective regarding the manager's employment termination is a gut assumption that it was a Starbucks damage control move - not the firing of an inept manager. Maybe we will get lucky and she will speak-out, or her Starbucks employment history and performance evaluation might get "leaked."

    She could turn-out to be the racist she is being portrayed as and Starbucks was at fault for continuing her employment. Or, she could turn-out to be an exemplary manager following company policy and directives for her store, and she was indeed sacrificed as a scapegoat.

    Yet, look at the speculation already. The screamers; the protesters and agenda organizations, have already determined she is a racist, and even the "reasonable folks" say she is just another example of the "...standard racial bias..."  we all know is just below the surface of every non-black person.

    Without confirming answers from some of those questions above, how can those reasonable folks feel confident of such a declaration?

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      They can't.  Any of your questions have a dozen reasonable answers that have nothing to do with racism.

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Since all that we can do, at this point, is speculate on the "truth" of this incident, I will add to that speculation with a couple questions, (or more), that I think should be considered.

      Great GA, lets hear it....
      --------------------------
      And since I think those questions might pertain to a perspective that doesn't include racial bias, (or hard racism), I will put my "Red Blinders" on before I start.

      As Credence2 noted, Starbuck's business model has been to foster an atmosphere of a gathering place. So why the "bathrooms for paying customers only" policy at this store? Two pieces I read indicated it is not a company wide policy, (and like Cred, I have not found it to be a common practice in hospitality places I have visited), so why was it policy at this Starbucks?

      It is a pretty tacky policy, anything but warm and inviting for the customer, Starbucks is the last place I would expect to find it.
      --------------------------------------------------------------
      Obviously, by asking that question I am inferring that non-customer loitering might have been a problem at this store. What other justification could there be?

      What constitutes "loitering", seems like it is a business that encourages customers getting warm and cozy, where is the line for when that becomes loitering? The manager said that they were loitering by asking to use the lavatory prior to ordering anything.
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Regarding racial bias, it may not be germane but the two "primary" cell phone videos of the event show 4, (probably 5 counting one of the video shooters), white customers, (ok, light-skinned customers), and 2 dark skinned customers. There is no way of knowing, (from the videos), what other customers, or customer mix may have been there, but at least the videos show it was not an all white clientele.

      Remarkable, I will have to add "Sherlock Holmes" to your list of talents. Starbucks is smart enough to not allow a situation where an atmosphere is created where non-whites are clearly unwelcome. It could just as well be differing rules for differing patrons, while their 'rules' are not etched in stone for all to see
      ---------------------------------------------

      Does that have any bearing on the manager's "racial bias?" Obviously an unanswerable question. But, at least it shows this probably didn't happen in a lily-white environment, which probably also means it wasn't an OMG! Black people! reaction from the manager - maybe.

      Discrimination can be cleverly employed, it is not the shock of black folks, you are sitting in the 'balcony" in the theatre, you are not made of aware of it.
      -------------------------------------------------
      Speaking of that manager ... How can a statement such as; "The woman should have been fired for using poor judgement in elevating the issue to the city police.", (sorry Cred - picking on the statement, not the poster), when so little is known about why the police were called? What if the bathroom policy and the manager's speedy response to this event were because this store did have a serious loitering problem? I am not implying they did, because I don't know, but if they did, should "that woman" still be fired for her actions?

      If Starbucks is using the woman as a scapegoat, it remains speculative. That thought had crossed my mind, she may well be offered in sacrifice by the company in preference to it dealing with a public relations nightmare.  She has to make a case stating that was, in fact, the case, that she fact did her job as the rules required. We are only left with her wrongdoing if she will not say otherwise. No explanation is being offered, and Starbucks does not correct the impression of wrongdoing by their staff manager if it were inappropriate.
      ------------------------------------------------
      That point leads to another question, "Why such a speedy response to these guys, first by the manager approaching the table, and then by her quick call to the police?

      Again, why no answer from Starbucks or its representatives? The men may have been belligerent regarding being refused use of restroom facilities. They certainly had not been there long enough to constitute the charge of loitering. Did the police give the men the opportunity to leave before subjecting them to arrest?
      ------------------------------------------
      If there is any basis for questioning the "why" of the bathroom policy, and any thing to be drawn from the display of a mixed clientele in the videos, and no indication the two guys were causing a scene ... then why did the manager act so quickly in both her approaches - the table and the police?

      I would like to know that, the fact that the company and the employee won't clarify this, wrongdoing must be the case, by default.
      -------------------------------------------------
      My perspective regarding the manager's employment termination is a gut assumption that it was a Starbucks damage control move - not the firing of an inept manager. Maybe we will get lucky and she will speak-out, or her Starbucks employment history and performance evaluation might get "leaked."

      It is a reasonable assumption, but until she speaks out, her role relative to that of her employer (and presumption of her innocence) has yet to be clarified.
      -------------------------------------------
      She could turn-out to be the racist she is being portrayed as and Starbucks was at fault for continuing her employment. Or, she could turn-out to be an exemplary manager following company policy and directives for her store, and she was indeed sacrificed as a scapegoat.

      As of right now, was the policy a surreptitious one supported by Starbucks, if not openly, or was the woman acting on her own, outside of company policy? Like I always said during my Federal career, I would rather be fired for doing my job than for not doing it. 
      ----------------------------------------------------------------
      Yet, look at the speculation already. The screamers; the protesters and agenda organizations, have already determined she is a racist, and even the "reasonable folks" say she is just another example of the "...standard racial bias..."  we all know is just below the surface of every non-black person.

      I am sorry for all the brouhaha, I am open to it being just a misunderstanding, but some clarification needs to come from her explaining her stand. Not for me to paint a bleak picture, but we all have to consciously work to keep our biases out of work and job. And we all have them.
      -------------------------------------------------------
      Without confirming answers from some of those questions above, how can those reasonable folks feel confident of such a declaration?

      The incident has been acknowledged as an instance of bias in treatment of customers, I am reasonable in waiting for an explanation from the company or employee to allow an conclusion other than the "declaration".
      ---------------------------------------------------------

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        I think I can offer the answer to one of your questions Cred, regarding whether the police gave the men the opportunity to leave before being arrested.

        The videos show a lot of discussion before they were handcuffed. It sure looks like they were probably asked first.

        Also, several of the articles on this event say the police asked them multiple times, (3 was one number quoted), to leave - before they were handcuffed.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks, that weakens the case for the men. They were disruptive in not following police direction. They were furious at their treatment and resisted police as they believed that they were doing nothing at all. But, if it were me, I would have followed direction with the determination that heads were going to roll in regards to Starbucks and it staff at that location from my complaint.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        "The incident has been acknowledged as an instance of bias in treatment of customers..."

        Link, please, to where the manager says "I was racist and want to get blacks out of my store"?  Or even where upper Starbucks management says "The manager admits her motive for requesting the men leave was based on race"?

        Or are you using their stated plan for the meeting, issued in response to public outcry of racism, is the sole reason to concluding the event was based on race?

  6. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 22 months ago

    The people there who didn't know know the victims or staff don't say there's more to it, it was videoed and the video doesn't show there being and more to it, and Starbucks leadership don't says there's more to it and they need to do more training to avoid it happening again.

    So, yeah, maybe there isn't more to it.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Maybe there isn't more to it.  Maybe it was a simple case of racial bias by the manager.

      Is "maybe" a reason to declare it was racial discrimination?  Or does "maybe" mean just that - "maybe" it was and "maybe it wasn't racially motivated?  Insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

    2. mrpopo profile image72
      mrpopoposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      All three of those perspectives don't show the one perspective that we're missing - the manager who made the call and her reasons for doing so.

      Maybe there isn't more to it, or maybe there is.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14009179.jpg

        Too bad she doesn't work for Starbucket ,   she's just a professor in a publicly funded college .

        1. mrpopo profile image72
          mrpopoposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry, who is?

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            A Tenured professor in so. Cal .college who dissed former first lady Bush on her death by making outlandish and cruel remarks bragging "they can't fire me I'm tenured ".  It's in the news , some media at least . Makes me think of the whole Ward Churchill fiasco . Tenured professors who think they can be socially blasphemous and treasonously divisive .

            1. mrpopo profile image72
              mrpopoposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Ah yes, I did hear about that.

              I don't think she should be fired for her offensive remarks, but from the looks of it she may be facing even legal action for her stunt with the suicide hotline.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Of all of  the abuses of the first amendment , seriously .  I find that the hypocrisy of many here especially who cry '....It's all just free speech ". Looking  at the public and private injury of the first amendment abuses is really so far different than those abuses of the second amendment ?
                Really ?  Riots , cop killings , burning down cities , professors and teachers  like this one polluting the minds of kids on the public dime ?  There is as much or even more damage from first amendment abuses as there is of the second .

                1. jackclee lm profile image81
                  jackclee lmposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  I think people have a miss understanding of the free speech and the 1st Amendment.
                  Yes, she has a right to say what she wants. However, there may be consequences as a result.
                  For example, If someone libel another, there are legal ramifications...
                  A teacher can say what they want after class just as any other person, but in class, she has to follow a set curriculum. Free speech is not unlimited. Just as one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. This can lead to people getting hurt seriously.
                  The right of free speech and assembly is to insure minority opinions are not suppressed.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    I am pleasantly surprised, Jack, that is the correct assessment.

                2. mrpopo profile image72
                  mrpopoposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  I don't see how riots, cop killings, and burning down cities are part of free speech. Unless you are referring to the indoctrinated content that encourages this behaviour.

                  Still, even the course content taught in schools isn't necessarily a free speech issue. It's more like "do we, as taxpayers, want this garbage to be taught to our kids?" People are free to tout ideological nonsense on their own, but not at the taxpayer's expense.

                  I'd be careful with equating the 'damages' between the amendments - there is plenty of overlap in those that want to remove the second and those that want to remove the first.

                  1. profile image0
                    ahorsebackposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    Neither amendment will be changed ,  and both will be exploited for politics . Social media may get some FCC limits or something . The constitution has remained unchanged and will continue to be the same , I believe.

  7. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 22 months ago

    My gosh folks, it that happened down here in the deep south the Spanky voters would cheer it on. As do some here...

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)