In June, 2023, Starbucks had to face a unanimous jury decision in favor of a regional manager whom Starbucks' upper management had fired because she had resisted the company's racist policy of punishing innocent Caucasian managers for good public relations, which the CEO felt was needed and appropriate after a store manager had legitimately called the police on two Black people in a Starbucks restaurant who presumed the right not only to sit in a restaurant without ordering anything (before Starbucks allowed this), but also to ignore the authority of the store's manager. Starbucks cowered to the unjust negative publicity, and thus showed a lack of leadership, and went on to act unethically in wanting to show the world that the company can go after Caucasian employees. This racism is ironic, for several years earlier, Starbucks' CEO had ordered employees at the store level to discuss racism with customers. Interestingly, the anti-racist ideology being preached was partial, and thus contained a blind spot wherein racism such as the company's upper management would exhibit is acceptable.
As the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz had employees promote his political ideology on two social issues: gay marriage and race. Regarding the latter, he ordered employees, whom he artfully called partners, to write race messages on cups so customers would unknowingly enable employees to impart Schultz’s position on the issue by raising the topic. I assume that the employees could not begin such conversations. I have argued elsewhere that Schultz’s use of the employees for such a purpose was not only extrinsic to making coffee as per the employees’ job descriptions, but also unethical.[1] In terms of corporate governance alone, the shareholders, as the owners of the company, should have decided whether to have their company used to promote partisan positions on social issues. In 2023, Target and Budweiser would learn of the perils in wandering off the knitting to get political on social issues. In terms of jurisprudence, the “right” of a company, a legal entity, to have free speech is dubious, as abstract entities, even if legally recognized as such, are not human beings. Rather, the “free speech” claimed by companies is really that of the human beings who work for the companies. Using an abstract entity that itself cannot speak to gain additional publicity for one’s ideological views is unfair because the vaulted or amplified speakers are not so from a democratic standpoint. In short, why should Howard Schultz have access to a megaphone and employees to propagate his political ideology on social issues, when you and I have no such means of self-amplification? Whether we agree or disagree with the former CEO’s political ideology on race is not relevant to my point. To be sure, that his employees were told to speak against racism is in my opinion much better than had they been told to advocate racism against Black people. That Starbucks would then engage in racism is that much harder to understand, but perhaps the hypocrisy reflects a hidden negative aspect of Schultz’s ideology on race. American society could benefit by having that aspect uncovered; such a benefit vastly outweighs any benefit to business. Even in a pro-business culture, a lower good should not be put over a higher one. Aristotle refers to this error as misordered concupiscence.
In June, 2023, a jury in New Jersey “found in favor of
former Starbucks regional director Shannon Phillips, who sued the company for
wrongfully firing her, claiming she was terminated for being White.”[2]
The company’s position was that Phillis’ boss fired her because she had displayed
weak leadership. The use of such vague jargon as leadership for what is
actually management is itself problematic. Even if Phillips had “appeared
overwhelmed and lacked awareness of how critical the situation had become,” as
her boss presumably had written, does not constitute weak leadership, for she
was not in a leadership role[3];
instead, the company’s CEO should have got out in front of the issue and
provided a vision for the company.[4]
If Schultz was the CEO at the time, the failure of his leadership would be
especially telling, considering his earlier foray into politics using the
company to promote his ideology.
The triggering incident that had overwhelmed Phillips, according to her boss, whom the CEO at the time must agree in retrospect failed as a supervisor but presumably was not fired, involved two Black men who had refused to leave a Starbucks store in 2018 even though they would not purchase anything. They were thus not customers, and the incident occurred before the company allowed non-purchasers to be in the stores. That the two Black men refused to leave the company’s private property means they were trespassing, so the store manager was on solid legal grounds in having the local police remove the men from the store. Being Black, even if that race has been (and is) subject to racism generally, does not give a person the right to trespass on private property, and efforts to remove such trespassing is not racist, for anyone trespassing would be legally subject to removal from the property.
I
contend that Howard Schultz’s notion of racial reconciliation suffers from the
weakness of being blind to the racial presumption displayed by the two Blacks. In
having employees talk about the need not to be racist to customers, Schultz was
assuming that racism is something that non-Blacks do to Blacks. Employees were
not told to suggest to Black customers that being Black does not give them
special exemptions from the law or in society. Schultz could have had employees
suggest to Black customers that jay-walking between intersections in a major
street even if cars are coming is not “a Black thing” that is justified because
the race in general has been subject to discrimination. Furthermore, the use of
the word, nigga, cannot be allowed only if the speaker is Black, for that would
be a racist position. For a Black person who uses the word to become hostile or
aggressive towards an Indian, Oriental, or Caucasian who also uses the word is
itself racist (and of course the hostility is unjustified unless the related
word nigger is used in a hostile manner). The U.S. Constitution does not
indicate that free speech depends or is limited by race; such a clause would be
prime facie racist.
Phillips’ complaint, which the jury accepted unanimously, states that following the arrest of the two Black men, Starbucks “took steps to punish White employees who had not been involved in the arrests, but who worked in and around the city of Philadelphia, in an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident.”[5] Phillips was ordered “to place a White employee on administrative leave as part of these efforts, due to alleged discriminatory conduct which Phillips said she knew was inaccurate. After Phillips tried to defend the employee, the company let her go.”[6] It does not sound like Phillips was overwhelmed; in fact, she was being pro-active and ethical in defending an employee from an unjust punishment. The implication is that the person who fired Phillips acted unethically.
Moreover, in being willing to sacrifice Caucasian employees based on their race for good public relations, the company’s upper managers were being racist. An unseen implication is that those managers believed that the public reaction against the company for having the two Black men removed from the store in Philadelphia had some validity—that Black people should not be treated like that or that Black people deserve special treatment due to their race. But such a belief is itself racist. Schutz’s talking points for his employees to discuss with customers on race did not include mention of the racism in such beliefs. Moreover, he did not have the company’s employees talk about racism by Black people stemming from resentment. Any ideology is partial, rather than whole, and even claim of being against racism can fall short. In going after Caucasian employees, including Phillips, Starbucks’ upper managers fell short; the failure of leadership ultimate belongs to the CEO at the time. At least at the time of the trial, Howard Schultz was the CEO.
1. Skip Worden, Bucking
Starbucks’ Star.
2. Danielle Wiener-Bronner, “Starbucks
Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being
White,” CNN.com, June 14, 2023.
3. Ibid.
4. Skip Worden, The
Essence of Leadership.
5. Danielle
Wiener-Bronner, “Starbucks
Ordered to Pay $25.6 million to a Manager Who Says She Was Fired for Being
White.
6. Ibid.
