#BoycottStarbucks & Corporate Responses to Inequity

LinkedIn is an interesting professional community. It is revered as the alternative to Facebook and Twitter, usually unlittered (I made that word up I think) with opinions, selfies, and cat emojis. Once in a while, we see the occasional post from a user that can't resist expressing disdain for a political decision or a social movement that calls for all of us to use our platforms to amplify some of the more divisive realities of our day. That user may get a couple likes; may get scolded for raising political issues on a site often used to encourage and motivate; or that user may get no reaction at all. Yet there was one issue that popped up this past weekend that is worth highlighting--especially for those in the equity, diversity and inclusion space.

Don't be afraid to call out the injustices communities face--and how your company stands to promote equity not just when there's a crisis, but on an ongoing basis.

Last week, at a Starbucks in Philadelphia, two men waiting for a friend asked to use a Starbucks restroom and were denied usage. A viral video was shared via social media, showing the two black men being arrested after the Starbucks manager called 911 for "trespassing." Their friend (who happens to be white) was visibly upset, confused as to why his friends were being taking away in handcuffs. Though the incident happened early afternoon on a Thursday, the men--both real estate professionals--weren't released until the following morning at 12:30am. By then, #BoycottStarbucks was born, and customers of diverse backgrounds, races and beliefs found creative ways to express the many layers of differential treatment customers of color experience in Starbucks and other service establishments.

Of course, when I first heard about the incident, I was part disappointed, part numb, but 100 percent not surprised. Implicit bias, racialized and genderized treatment is something I've become accustom to as a customer from many companies, whether Fortune 500 or mom-and-pop shops. I also teach a college course that includes a deep analysis of discrimination in both private and public spaces. So to be honest, I wasn't so sure I was going to participate in the trending #BoycottStarbucks movement for two reasons (and neither of them have to do with my love for caramel macchiato). The first was that was that each Starbucks is a private franchise, and thus each store is almost their own business. I say "almost," because of course, there is still responsibility at the corporate level as to who gets to open a Starbucks and what values you expect them to enforce.

The second reason was because frankly, I was curious to hear how Starbucks corporate would respond. Below is the first response that I saw via Twitter:

I'm not sure if this was the only social media response Starbucks shared, but I must admit: this tweet was not satisfactory to me, as it portrayed the incident as a police v. community issue, not one that included an important actor in this whole equation: Starbucks. I had some real questions: Who called the officers and what were they told happened? Were the two men asked to leave and they refused? Were they belligerent, rude, or threatening? It seemed like the Starbucks gave the "I'm sorry," a lover gives, but when pressed with "well, what are you sorry for," they really have no idea. (Hint: your company is better off not saying anything at all, or taking a moment to know what they should apologize for).

I then read the formal statement from Starbucks CEO, Kevin Johnson, which is a rather strong response on what he called a "disheartening situation." In addition to reviewing the situation, his promise to the greater community includes an investigation of their company practices, commitment to creating safe spaces, and hosting "community-wide meetings" to share what they've learned about this incident and connect deeper with customers and community leaders about next steps ahead. All of which are appropriate and necessary steps. But there are a couple flags that were raised with Mr. Johnson's statement, that I share not to shame him and his team at all, but rather to highlight how each and every line matters during crisis communications involving injustice.

In his eloquent apology, Mr. Johnson spoke directly to the action that led to the arrest: the phone call to the police department. I applaud him for doing so, as a general statement of sympathy for customers arrested for the crime of just being would not have been serious enough. Mr. Johnson condemned the action, stating that the "basis for the call...was wrong." His following statement, however, of "our store manager never intended for these men to be arrested and this should never have escalated as it did" shows a real disconnect in society as to the world black people face everyday. The consequences of 911 calls on black lives can be costly and deadly. My mind immediately recalled John Crawford, a black customer in a Walmart in Ohio, who in August 2014 was gunned down after a call to 911 reported that there was a man walking around "with a gun," waving it at children. Video accounts later proved the alarm to not only be untrue, but in a store that sells guns and in an open carry state, Crawford's only crime was taking an unloaded BB gun off a shelf. The black community can easily recall the 911 call that led to the shooting death of 12-year old Tamir Rice, who was characterized by the caller as "older looking" and a "gangster." Tamir's crime: playing cops and robbers at a park. From law enforcement coming into classrooms and assaulting students for texting to unarmed black people being killed in their own homes or backyards--this, my friends, is not a new phenomena.

It's not enough to state that a manager (in an urban city like Philadelphia, mind you) did not intend for these men to be arrested. But in case it bears noting, we are in a nation where it is not hard to be seen as "suspicious" simply for being a black person (I highly encourage everyone to read the Supreme Court Terry v. Ohio case, including Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent). As much as we insulate ourselves on platforms such as LinkedIn from the rumblings of social media, corporate responsibility requires an understanding of the realities of your clients, customers and audiences. And the reality is this: two black men--who probably love lattes, who probably have the Starbucks app on their phone, who probably found Starbucks to be a safe space to hold meetings with friends, family and clients--could have been harmed or even killed in that Starbucks store. And once we embrace that, we can work even more effectively on how to prevent that from ever being a reality moving forward.   

There's so much more insight to share on this topic, and I'm actually encouraged by those who reached to me over the weekend to ask for support on how to address this issue with their own corporate teams. Here are some toplines that I shared (and this is not just for corporate communities):

1) Diversity and Inclusion includes understanding the pulse of your customers' realities. Don't be afraid to call out the injustices communities face--and how your company stands to promote equity not just when there's a crisis, but on an ongoing basis. Engagement built on authentic connections will actually support your bottom line.

2) Trying to convince communities that have already been harmed by your company that such and such actions "does not align with out missions and values," feels tone-deaf and boilerplate. If you have to mention the mission--spell out what that mission is. Be clear about the continuous learning your company will engage in to fulfill that mission. In short, don't act like you got it all together. We'd rather you say "we messed up and we're working on this," than "this employee was a bad apple who didn't read page 456 of our diversity guidebook."

3) Incorporate other voices in your corporate responses and equity decision-making. Gut checks from a few employees before publishing a quick response can prove fruitful, and often results in the identification of overlooked, insensitive and out-of-touch correspondences. It also shows a deep commitment to your employees who live intersectional realities that you understand the hardships they face everyday just being who they are.

I still have yet to decide what my personal consumer actions will be as it relates to Starbucks. But I applaud the customers for not ignoring this issue, and for the many that do not live a marginalized experience that stood up for black lives this weekend. It's an important wake-up call for businesses that communities are now demanding more intentional responses from corporate leadership, and are holding them accountable for biases that lead to the devaluation of human life.

Ifeoma Ike, Esq. is a Principal at Think Rubix, LLC--a global thought-partnership and social impact strategy firm. She's built equity programs for companies, non-profits and municipalities, as well as trains businesses how to meaningfully undo bigotry to create equitable cultures. She will be drinking coffee at her local bodega in Brooklyn today.