04-18-2018, 10:06 AM
(04-17-2018, 09:51 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That may have been their story, but the real issue is loitering and taking up space that could be occupied by paying customers. I'm pretty sure there was a corporate directive, instructing inner city Starbucks Managers to get rid of the loiterers. So, these guys just happen to be Black, in Philadelphia. What a coincidence.. Doesn't make the Manager's actions racist, she was just following company line.
If the application of the directive is applied disproportionately to black people over white people, then yes, the actions are racist. If a person gives more leeway to a white person over a black person on the loitering front, then that is racist. The fact that this directive was for inner city locations, where it would affect primarily minority customers does speak to the corporate effort, which is probably why Starbucks hasn't come out about that.
If there is a company wide memo about this talking about reducing loitering without purchases, fine. But when your application of such a policy, whether through the location selection or through the discretion by the manager, impacts minorities in a disproportionate way then it is a policy that is rooted in racial bias.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
