IF the embed won’t play, you can watch it on NBC’s site.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a full transcript. There’s a lot of interesting stuff there. It’s also nice to see a show in which two Black panelists talk and clearly disagree, rather than having a single panelist to represent “the” black perspective. I tend to agree with Smooth, whose analysis is more structural. Here’s a paragraph of it, via Conor at The Atlantic.
Jay Smooth: The intentions seem noble and I want to keep an open mind. But I think there’s already this strange fixation on conversation when it comes to race, which you don’t see with other issues that we want to take seriously. I think it’s telling that when Howard Schultz wanted to help veterans he didn’t just tell people to have conversations about how much they like veterans. He committed to a plan of action to help veterans. He talked about being inspired by what happened in Ferguson. But I think when you look at the DOJ report on Ferguson, it does not describe issues that can be addressed by having chats in coffee shops. You’re talking about institutional, systemic issues. The emphasis on talking about it misleads us about where the problems are. This focus on conversation comes out of our assumption that racism manifests on a personal level in our individual feelings toward each other.
There is a brief, interesting diversion touching on code-switching at 5:20, when Giles gently teased Smooth for his “co-opted” speech style on his Youtube videos, not realizing that Smooth, who is light-skinned, is Black. Giles, recovering, points out that because she is visibly black she gets criticized for “talking white.”
I do not drink coffee. But I may just have to make a point of walking into a Starbucks and ordering some hot cocoa (they make some pretty good cocoa) hoping that the kid giving me my cocoa asks me my opinions on race and racial relations in the U.S. This could be hilarious.
I’m with Jay: It’s an unfair burden to place on someone who just wants to get through their shift and go home. How on earth could a fucking barista feel comfortable strongly voicing disagreement with a racist customer? Is Starbucks going to pledge not to discipline them when the inevitable shitstorm erupts?
This is a bad idea.
—Myca
I’m a WoC and I disagree with handling in that manner too. I see your point. These people just want to get through their day and go home.
We know for a certainty, since all manner of a**holes have been given permission in our society, to openly display their stupidity, that these workers are going to be on the receiving end of some ugly racist comments, and not every one of them is going to have the patience, and time to respond in a calm and teaching manner. Ugliness is going to ensue.
Will the company that wants them to do something so far out of their job description and so stressful as well, have their back?
And what if the barista is a PoC? I know I have a teaching type, service job and even I wouldn’t open a conversation about race, with a stranger of any race, that wandered up to my counter. Outside of being Black, I have no special training in talking about race and I would be hard pressed to hold my temper when faced with the level of ignorance I know some of these workers will be faced with.
Do they receive extra compensation for doing it?
Oh god, there are so many fail conditions here. I shudder to think of the clueless white barista and the clueless white customer discussing ‘race’ together.
“Sure seems like they’re a bunch of whiners to me.”
“You know, sir, I was just thinking that!”
Yeesh.
No bueno. No fucking bueno at all.
—Myca
Are you presuming they’ll only be on the receiving end?
So what happens if the coffee server is a flaming racist? Do they get fired? What happens if the kid isn’t a racist but some customer decides to get offended and claim they are?
Just another clueless CEO surrounded by people who are either afraid to contradict him or were selected on the basis of whether or not they think like him.
Based on my career of working for corporations at various levels: Oh, HELL no. Regardless of whether the employee is racist or whether the customer is racist, they’ll throw that employee under the bus so fast you’ll wonder where they went. Then the lawsuits will start coming.
This is going to get real interesting. Some people making somewhere around minimum wage will get their lives turned inside out. Someone making millions of dollars will take a minor PR hit, still make millions of dollars, and have no more thought about his employees being real people than he worries about the pieces of trash stirred up out of the gutter as he drives down the road.
Ron F: I see your point, but at the time I was thinking that most of their minimum wage workers are probably PoC. But you’re right. That doesn’t preclude some customer accusing them of being a racist or making nasty statements themselves.
Certainly these conversations need to happen. I don’t have a problem with that part. I just don’t believe this company should lay the entirety of that burden on its least powerful employees.
Comment I liked on Instapundit:
Ikeke35 @ 6:
Not in my neighborhood. In the three nearest Starbucks to my house, which would encompass a spread of some 8 miles, I have NEVER seen a black or Hispanic employee. I”m not there a lot, mind you.
I’m not about to have a conversation with anyone about anything before I’ve got some caffeine in my system.
At the ones in NYC, a pretty good proportion of the employees are POC.
I would imagine that if I frequented a Starbucks in Chicago I’d see plenty of Hispanics and blacks. But not around me.
I think that Starbucks would do better to reserve a table or two for customers who want to talk about race. This puts the burden on the company rather than the baristas, and avoids a lot of consent issues.
@ Nancy Lebovitz
That’s a much better idea!
Another one: someone in the comment thread of the xoJane article about this a few days ago suggested that better implementation of the “facilitate a conversation about race relations in the US” goal would have been for Starbucks to invite POC activists, leaders of community organizations, poets, musicians, etc to come speak and/or perform at their local Starbucks. The speakers / artists get some compensation which will support their work and the local economy, the baristas don’t have ‘be knowledgable about race issues’ randomly added to their job requirements/duties, and Starbucks customers have the opportunity to learn a bit more about issues in their community in an ‘accessible’ setting (i.e. they don’t have to go somewhere new and deal with being in an unfamiliar environment etc). Win-win-win.
dragon_soap, I’ve hit a point where I’m very tired of a lot of Social Justice material– and I’m more tolerant of it than many are. If a place where I wanted to shop had speakers promoting it, I’d probably just be arguing in my head with it, but I might just walk out.
I think that’s a bit dismissive of Starbucks baristas, a lot of them are going to have the right sort of degree for this type of discussion.
https://youtu.be/oShTJ90fC34
Better for who?
Better for the activists, leaders of community organizations, poets, musicians? Yes, perhaps. Not definitely: it only works if they are willing/able to deal with people who oppose their viewpoints. And if they’re willing/able to communicate with them.
There’s a big difference between “giving a speech to a group of interested parties who share your views and goals,” and “promoting those same views to the public at large.” Words like “racism” have different meanings, and you don’t get to claim nearly as large of a core set of assumptions to support your side.
Also, the more that someone is an “activist” the more that they tend to have polarizing effects, which may develop the reverse of what you want. You probably wouldn’t send Twisty to talk to the general public and represent feminism, unless you were fine with having some folks become anti-feminist.
Better for Starbucks? No. They have to pay people, of course. More to the point they have to spend a lot of time screening folks, which is expensive–or if not, they risk the fallout of “STARBUCKS THINKS ALL WHITES ARE RACIST” headlines. And they will probably lose customers.
Better for the customers/baristas? No. Not unless you think of getting involuntarily lectured as a benefit. (If you think that anyone who opines on race is going to have the same views as everyone who is a barista, or be a POC, you should reconsider your assumptions. In my experience, most baristas I know have been white, and POC are not a homogeneous entity.) Most Starbucks customers and baristas already “have the opportunity to learn a bit more about issues in their community in an ‘accessible’ setting” if they want to; they simply don’t want to.
lose-lose-lose; or meh-lose-lose, IMO. Funny thought, though. :)
my favorite bit in your post was “… because she is visibly black…” — the entire *concept* of race in this country is ridiculous (and places like South Africa did plenty to demonstrate how stupid and arbitrary it was as well), let alone the myriad ways we might talk or display our ignorance about the experiences of others. just wow. :))