In mid-March, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced an initiative that would encourage baristas to engage customers in conversations about race. By writing “Race Together” or placing “Race Together” stickers on customers’ cups, Starbucks would lead the country into meaningful conversation and help to heal racial divisions.
The backlash on social media was both immediate and fierce. Twitter lit up with comments about Starbucks’ disproportionately white male leadership team and questioned why there are no Starbucks in places like Ferguson, Mo., where police fatally shot an unarmed black man last summer. Things got so ugly that the senior vice president of global communications blocked negative comments on his Twitter account – and, in response, people pointed out the hypocrisy of expecting 20-somethings to talk about something he couldn’t deal with.
Just one week after the initiative began, Schultz told baristas they would no longer be asked to write “Race Together” or place stickers on customers’ cups. Somewhat disingenuously, Starbucks said they were not reacting to the backlash, but following a schedule to end this phase.
Why would Starbucks think this was a good idea? Race has always been a divisive topic in America, difficult to talk about even among close friends. Why would anyone presume that a customer who comes into your shop for a cup of coffee – perhaps to check email, visit with a friend or simply relax – cares what your employees think about race? Even more, when customers stop for coffee on the way to work, it’s completely insensitive to expect engagement on ANY topic, let alone one so difficult.
But this went beyond not understanding its customers. The company’s tone-deaf communications suggest their CEO is doing something courageous. Remember, not all that long ago, brave people in this country were blasted with fire hoses, brutally beaten and killed for speaking out about civil rights. Now Starbucks says “It began with one voice” – its CEO’s voice. That is so wrong. It ignores history. It dismisses true courage. And it shows a lack of appreciation for those who are doing the hard work to resolve these issues.
If Schultz actually wants to contribute to the conversation on race, he should spend serious time in minority communities, listening to the disenfranchised, to church and community leaders. He should ask them how he can help. He should offer support to community organizations that are already working to improve race relations.
Starbucks could also have positioned itself as convener, prompting customers to discuss tough issues with each other rather than promoting forced and awkward small talk with employees. Difficult conversations have taken place over coffee for decades. But the next time I buy Starbucks, I’d prefer prompt and friendly service to a conversation with a barista on such a complex issue.