Critical Race Theory as Ideology

The word theory signifies proposed knowledge that is not merely subjective sentiment or belief that is being prescribed or advocated as an ideology; the purpose of a theory is rather to explain. Only in terms of better understanding is the implication that a better world could result (i.e., from the enhanced understanding). Even though a theory does not constitute established knowledge, that ideologues have seized on the label as a way of legitimating their respective cherished ideologies should come as no surprise because ideology sells better in the guise of knowledge even though a theory has yet to gain sufficient support epistemologically to be recognized as established knowledge. The epistemological subterfuge—a Trojan horse of sorts—also hides the fact that the ideologue seeks to persuade or advocate rather than primarily explain. Under the patina of a knowledge-claim lies quite another instinctual urge. Nietzsche’s claim that the content of a thought is none other than an instinctual urge of sufficient power to burst into consciousness—a manifestation of the will to power—provides an explanation for why the slight of hand is so easy for ideologues to make in sliding over to present the veneer of knowledge-claims even though such claims do in fact differ qualitatively from ideological claims. I contend that critical race “theory,” as well as the related interactionist “theory,” is in its very substance ideological in nature, rather than knowledge or even a theory.

The full essay is at "Critical Race Theory as Ideology."

Starbucks: A Racist Company Against Racism

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.

Nike Takes a Controversial Stand on NFL-Player Protests: A Foray into Unnecessary Risk

“Nike became Nike because it was built on the idea of rebellion,” Jemele Hill, a sports journalist wrote. “This is the same company that dealt w/ the NBA banning Air Jordans. They made [Michael] Jordan the face of the company at a time when black men were considered to be a huge risk as pitch men.”[1] Just days before the 2018-2019 NFL football season got underway, Nike threw “its weight behind one of the most polarizing figures in football, and America: former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick.”[2] He had been a leader in the black players’ movement to protest, by kneeling during the national anthem, the recurring abuse of power by police. The element of financial risk in Nike’s decision to include Kaepernick in an advertising campaign brings up the question: should businesses take sides on political issues—particularly, on contentious ones?

The matter of race at the time of Nike’s announcement in 2018 can be likened to a hot potato. In fact, the issue pertaining to Black Americans was sizzling, especially in the Arizona heat. On the Labor Day weekend, I witnessed two racial fights in Phoenix. One, on bus on the West side, began as a young Black mother of two thought a Caucasian had used the n-word; in fact, the man had stated that it is racist to permit Black-only use of the word. The substance of his assertion was borne out as the woman stirred up three Black men in the back of the bus, who because verbally abusive and threatening to the Caucasian man. As a bystander, I felt very uncomfortable. Even so, the driver ignored the aggressiveness and kept driving—that is, until the Black woman accused him of being a racist for not having thrown the accused “N-word” man off the bus. The driver pulled over and called the police, who removed that man from the bus and yet allowed the verbally aggressive passengers to remain. Not even the Caucasian driver had them removed, in spite of the fact that the Black mother had shouted “You’re a racist!” at him! The result was that the threatening and verbally abusive passengers felt emboldened, and thus likely to pounce again.

The very next day, in fact, on the city’s light rail, a Black man called a Hispanic man the N-word. That man objected, insisting that he was not Black. “Don’t call me that!” he insisted. Even though he was correct, several Black passengers pounced, as if they were justified. To be verbally and physically aggressive is two degrees of separation from apologizing. No security was on that train, and the driver did not hear the noise. Fortunately, a key person got off just before the fight would likely have gone to blows. Yet even so, that the ganging up on the offended man could go on effectively emboldened the activity. Hence I could predict there would be more of it. This was something new in American society, I thought after the second incident. I had witnessed many Black people under 40 regularly ignoring a myriad of local laws; I wondered if that sense of entitlement was then grounding a herd-like aggression that paid little heed to being morally justified (i.e., unlike the civil rights movement). One effect, I surmised at the time, was that the race would become increasingly avoided in big cities. I do not mean to suggest that this phenomenon can or should be generalized to an entire race—that would be racist. Yet it is entirely reasonable to instinctively avoid potentially threatening situations. Hence I took the decision to avoid certain bus routes in Phoenix. With so much meanness among strangers in that city, I wanted to be able to avoid that city itself, for on top of the incivility is a police-state that does not comprehend the concept of excessiveness, or “over-kill”-such as in police wearing bullet-proof vests regularly patrolling down the aisles of several Fry’s grocery stores. Just a week before the race fights described above, I heard a report of police having beaten up an unarmed Black man in Mesa. I suppose this could be looked at as “what goes around comes around” stemming from the sordid lawless and aggressive/racist mentalities I witnessed on public transportation, or as the indirect (and thus inappropriate) cause of the herd-aggression on the bus and rail.

In the context of unresolved racial issues centered around the Black race in America, Nike was indeed taking a financial risk in taking sides, in effect, on the NFL players’ protest against police brutality. The company could count on the supporters of the protests and even the gray area wherein both the Black aggression/racism/lawlessness and the police abuse of power are eschewed. The question was how far the “defend the flag” supporters and Caucasian racists would go in opposing the company. Why not stay out of controversial political issues if that means not risking any ideological group? Why not stick to the knitting? Surely large businesses have enough to deal with in being large organizations, and a given product or product-line always stands in need of improvement. To divert from these tasks and go so far as to risk the loss of part of a customer base without the approval of stockholders strikes me as an impious, or presumptuous, managerial move.

---

1. Nathaniel Meyersohn, “Nike Takes Sides, Tapping Colin Kaepernick for New ‘Just Do It’ Ad,” CNN Money, September 4, 2018 (accessed same day).

2. Ibid.

Starbucks’ CEO Triggering Conversations on Race

Should a company’s CEO use the vast tentacles of the local retail stores to prompt public discourse on race in America? Even though improving race relations is a good cause, extending a CEO’s personal influence beyond the products societally requires its own justification. For a week in March 2015, baristas at 12,000 Starbucks coffee shops implemented CEO Howard Schultz’s intent to “spark customer conversation on the topic of race.”[1] Schultz even made a video in which he told the baristas how they should steer their respective conversations. If this sounds a bit like George Orwell’s Big Brother in the novel, 1984, the question may be whether such societal influence is legitimate from a position of management in business.

Perhaps Shultz ought to devote some time to figuring out some better places for electric outlets in the stores. The middle-underside of a long table is not so good on knees. Put another way, if the management can't get something as simple as that right, what makes them think they can manage conversations on a controversial issue? 

The complete essay is at "Under Starbucks' Star."