Dear Kevin, Here's what Starbucks needs to think about (and then do)

I started this year writing letters to various people. Here's my letter to the CEO of Starbucks Kevin Johnson who took the helm 3 April 2017.

Dear Kevin,

Let me begin by commending your organization for taking assertive action with regard to the Philadelphia incident. I feel compelled to start there since I’m about to tell you why it isn’t enough.

I commend your organization and your Chairman in particular, for standing up so quickly in the face of the events in Philadelphia and for setting aside an afternoon to address a lifetime's worth of learned behavior, but I ask myself “Is it enough?” and frankly, I worry that you haven't asked the same question. 

Do you realize that it’s five centuries’ worth of learning that you’re trying to dislodge? (And yes, the history matters.) Do you appreciate all the mis-education that must be undone? (Again, yes, the history matters.) Have you determined what your  long term (ongoing) learning plan is? And what all are you willing to do as an organization, to disincentivize behaviors that have been actively incentivized for nearly 20 generations? 

I've been thinking about diversity (not even diversity and inclusion, just the diversity part) for several weeks. As an educated, Black, woman, immigrant from one of those nations so colorfully described by the president not too many months ago, it occurred to me recently that there can be no diversity at the top of an organization without equal access to resources at the bottom of our education system; and neither of those things is possible without a wholesale debunking of the myriad ugly myths and stereotypes about Blackness, myths and stereotypes that limit our access to opportunity. Anti-Blackness is a thing that must be dealt with boldly and squarely. Is Starbucks ready to take on that monster?

I’m not asking you to invest in pre-K  education – though if I worked at Starbucks I most assuredly would be – but I am saying that the only thing that can unwind generations’ worth of ugliness, and ugliness that is now bound up entirely in national our DNA, is an effort that attacks both cause and effect of racism.

What happened in Philadelphia a week or so ago was effect. And certainly, we can apply a bandaid to the wound but we must understand why the wound was inflicted in the first instance. What is the cause? The cause is stereotypical belief systems. The cause is a presumption of malicious intent, tied to those stereotypical beliefs. The cause is anti-Blackness. We have to name it before we can tame it. 

Does the program  the ADL is going to deliver attack those causal roots? Any gardener will tell you that just lopping the heads off weeds is a short term solution. Is the ADL coming with a weedwacker to trim stops or a trowel to dig up roots?

Starbucks is very proud of its efforts to source “fair trade” coffee. Perhaps it’s past time to extend “fairness” to more than just coffee beans? And to talk about that openly? Yes, there's an obvious financial consequence to doing this right, but I’m not going to try to sell you on that. We've too long made these kinds of moves only because they can be justified by some bottom line impact. We've long since monetized the business of  diversity & inclusion and yet many companies are still far short of their *targets* and resentment and resistance among the ranks remain high, as last summer's Googler meltdown proved. 

Finally, let me say this: if Starbucks is serious about moving the needle on racial bias then your organization, using the power of its market position and access, should demand an equal measure of commitment to D & I of your partners as you are prepared to make. There are different types of sustainability. There's sustainability for coffee producers, and there's sustainability for coffee drinkers. A one day training is fine and all, but the only way to kill the dragon that is unconscious bias is to attack it from multiple sides simultaneously. It must be left bleeding, mortally wounded by the time you’re done. Nothing else will do. Trifling with folks' racial biases leaves Black people at even greater risk (the backlash against forward movement in social justice in this country is well-documented). Bear in mind that it was after emancipation that lynching exploded. It was after Civil Rights that mass incarceration exploded. It's been since Obama that neo-Nazism has become more public.

The truth is that the ubiquity of anti-Blackness is such that radical acts of inclusion are the only way to deal at with this problem. Is Starbucks up to the task?

If you need a name, I'll give you one: Mary Canty Merrill, PhD. She knows exactly how to do what needs to be done.

Here's to your success, 
Elle

Qn: What do the 2018 Oscars and the PA Starbucks incident have in common?

Answer: they prove that there is no space where Blackness is safe; no circumstance where misunderstanding cannot result in injury, incarceration or death.

I've written a time or two (hundred) about bias. I've not used that word much or maybe at all, but at the heart of my writing that's what I'm talking about: the myriad ways in which bias against Blackness, Native-ness, Hispanic-ness, and foreign-ness have played out in America past and present. 

For those slow to get the memo, there are easily ten thousand insidious ways in which Blackness routinely serves as a hindrance to success, a shortener of life, and frustrater of liberty. The episodes I share below, and many, many others, are proof of that. 

This right here is how  un-problematic, completely ordinary I'm-just-minding-my-business-but-somehow-I'm-still-the-problem Blackness can turn potentially life-threatening.

Example 1

In today's episode of Black in America, we feature the Oscars. On Monday 5 March 2018, the day after the 2018 Oscars, we discovered that various members of the Academy had simply refused to see the movie Get Out. Just cuz. Well actually no, not just cuz. They had good reasons, all of them based in bias, not that they think their ignoring the film is about anything so crass as bias.

On that Monday. after Jordan Peele - Get Out's creator - had succeeded in nabbing an Oscar for his screenplay, but had failed to clinch the Best Picture statue, we had an opportunity to see one more time how bias impacts Black Lives even as we're out here minding our own business and trying to live lives of excellence.

The emergence of stories of Academy voters pointedly refusing to consider the movie because it dealt with the topic of racism should not have come as a surprise to anyone. If the underlying theme of the movie was that there really is no space in which Black people's safety is not under direct threat, then we needed to look no further than the comments by an (anonymous of course) academy voter, to see that borne out in fact. 

The story of one white female voter claiming that the movie had played the race card and was therefore not worthy of consideration was peak White fragility dressed up as taking the moral highground. In the Philly incident (below), a White store manager deciding that two Black men should be asked to leave was similarly peak bullshiggety. In both cases, if asked, the women would fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that their behavior was in any way ~ist (which would be funny if it weren't for the fact that this is how Black life unfolds daily). Our ability to give offense by simply showing up is legendary, and the long term impact of that offense cannot be overstated. Always and everywhere there is someone lying in wait to find fault with our efforts or our presence. Sometimes the reaction is just an insult but sometimes, the reaction is deadly violence. 

But the reality of America is that it's not just our jobs and our financial success that are at will, our lives are too. There is no misunderstanding too mundane to be life- or freedom-threatening. Any foolish misunderstanding can end in death. And that ain't hyperbole used for dramatic effect. That is pure truth. Ask Stephon Clark or Tamir Rice. Ask Jordan Davis or Jordan Edwards. There is no exchange or interaction with strangers that, for Black folk, that isn't potentially fatal. Ask Richard Collins III. To be left economically adrift is sometimes a good outcome, maybe even the best one can hope for. At least you're still alive right? That's a win. 

A similar case - about the unexpected levying of a Black tax - can now be made in regard to the Philly Starbucks incident. That's our second example.

Example 2

Synopsis: Two Black men, out here minding their own Black business (literally, they were waiting to have a business meeting) are frustrated in that endeavor by some woman who simply didn't like the look of them. It took her two minutes to decide that they were up to no good I guess. Becky Barista calls the popo - FIVE minutes after they arrive -  because they aren't ordering anything. They are arrested and removed, handcuffed, from the premises. They are released early the following morning. No charges are filed. 

Question: How is this any different from what Carolyn Donham Bryant did that resulted in Emmett Till's brutal murder? Have White folk not yet learned that calling the police for Black people for the crime of being Black in White spaces is tantamount to calling a hit man? Or do we still not get that?

A witness to the Philadelphia Starbucks arrest said a manager did not ask the two men to leave before calling police. Her full account: https://t.co/850qMqLlA1 pic.twitter.com/q9gUYIzw13

— Action News on 6abc (@6abc) April 14, 2018

Example 3

Michigan teen, lost and seeking directions to his high school knocks on door and is greeted with gunfire. Prejudices leapt into action. Boy knocks. "Must be a murderer/rapist/marauding horde of Blackness because marauding bands of negroes knock before they maraud," Henrietta Homeowner thinks and calls Gun-toting George. George gits his gun, points, shoots, stands his ground. Thankfully, the child survives the encounter physically unhurt. His psyche tho? Changed forever. 'Murica 2018.

Example 4

Here's a new one: Local Fox anchors criticized this Black teen for working TOO hard pic.twitter.com/sIwyciCC9j

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) April 9, 2018

Teen wants to go to college. Teen works hard and applies to many schools. Teen gets accepted to all the schools to which he has applied. TV anchors refer to him as obnoxious and charge him with having taken opportunities away from other deserving students. A survivable encounter certainly but when these anchors suggest that his actions have denied others access? Yeah, that's the kind of ish that gets negroes kilt. 

He may be unhurt physically but his psyche? One more nick, gratuitously taken because he has the temerity to be Black, brilliant, and broke and need all the scholarship money his brilliance can get him. So he applies to many schools seeking the best return on his investment in his intellect he can get. What do these anchors see? An obnoxious kid, causing heartache to other 'deserving' students. So many code words, so little time or tolerance. Surely if a student deserved a scholarship, they'd have won it? Surely if a student deserved a place, this boy who's clearly up near the front of the line, wouldn't have impacted their chances? But no! The negro is taking what's theirs by divine right. 

Uh huh. I say again, this is the kind of talk that gets negroes kilt. 

Four stupid, simple and supposedly innocuous situations. None of them turned out quite as expected because Black folk insist on being Black in public and frankly, the majority just can't abide the normalization of negritude. 

Folk recoil in horror when accused of racism but look up, re-read those four stories and tell me what the hell else it could be. What else could this be (example 5)? 

And so while I commend Starbucks for taking an afternoon to address five centuries' worth of learned behavior, I ask myself is it enough? How could it possibly be? What's the long term action plan? And how do you disincentivize a behavior that has been actively incentivized for five centuries? 

I've been thinking about diversity (not even diversity and inclusion, just the diversity part) for several weeks and here's one of my big takeaways: if Starbucks is serious about moving the needle on racial bias then Starbucks, using the power of its market position and access, must demand of all of its partners an equal commitment to diversity and equal treatment and consideration of all their employees as well. The only way to kill this dragon is to attack it from all sides simultaneously. Is that going to happen? I'm gonna take a guess and say no. Playing patty cake and peekaboo with racial bias leaves Black people dead and Starbucks feeling they've done their job and can go back to business as usual. But the truth is that the ubiquity of anti-Blackness is such that radical acts of inclusion are the only way to deal at this point. Is Starbucks up to the task? Doubtful. So they'll do their one time let's all sing Kumbaya thing  and call it a success I suppose. Shrugs.