You can get some use out of that humanities/critical studies degree after all!

Via Radix:

In move that could be considered a STIHIE if it wasn’t so Onion-worthy and likely to backfire, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (guess his ethnicity!) now wants his baristas to discuss race relations with customers.

Starbucks published a full page ad in the New York Times on Sunday — a stark, black, page with a tiny caption “Shall We Overcome?” in the middle, and the words “RaceTogether” with the company logo, on the bottom right. The ad, along with a similar one on Monday in USA Today, is part of an initiative launched this week by the coffee store chain to stimulate conversation and debate about the race in America by getting employees to engage with customers about the perennially hot button subject.

Beginning on Monday, Starbucks baristas will have the option as they serve customers to hand cups on which they’ve handwritten the words “Race Together” and start a discussion about race. This Friday, each copy of USA Today — which has a daily print circulation of almost 2 million and is a partner of Starbucks in this initiative — will have the first of a series of insert with information about race relations, including a variety of perspectives on race. Starbucks coffee shops will also stock the insert.

If you think this is a terrible business move and will only further alienate non-lefty Whites from his coffee brand, Schultz dismisses those concerns as nonsense.

Lots of people joke that people who study gender theory, race theory, and whatnot in college end up working as baristas while saddled with huge student debts.  This should be phrased more positively.  A degree in racial grievance prepares one to work at Starbucks!  Schultz has the most highly trained group of race hecklers he could want, an enormous untapped resource.  I am strangely but genuinely pleased that these hard-working baristas will finally get a chance to do a little bit of what they really love.  It will be awkward, though, for Starbucks employees who didn’t go to college or who got more practical degrees.  They don’t have the same training in demonizing whites, didn’t know it was going to be one of the expectations of the job, and are bound to feel a little inadequate.  Fortunately, I don’t think there are many such people with practical degrees or training working at Starbucks.

Why harass a large group of one’s customers?

  1. I suppose it’s barely possible that it makes business sense.  Perhaps it pleases the non-white and white Leftist customers enough for this to offset the lost business from whites who don’t want a lecture with their coffee.  Perhaps it makes employment at Starbucks more attractive, giving them an edge in hiring.  This sounds like a silly thing to worry about–there are lots of unemployed people who would be happy to work at Starbucks without the social justice enticement.  Then again, maybe there’s more competition for particular classes of service employees–attractive women in their early twenties, for instance.  Maybe there are lots of fellows who would like an opportunity to strike up a conversation with a cute waitress, and if the topic has to be race in America, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.  I doubt it, though.
  2. Shultz is a true believer, willing to sacrifice profit for ideology or animus.
  3. When you’re as rich as the CEO of a big company, pure selfishness leads you to care less about bigger profits than about social status, and you’re happy to pay for the second with the first (which comes out of the pockets of the shareholders anyway).  This is what I think most likely.  As soon as an individual or business reaches a modest level of success, further increases of profit bring less utility to decision-makers than enhanced social status from ostentatious displays of fidelity to progressivism.

20 Responses

  1. A topic about which “we need to have a conversation” is invariably a topics about which it is no longer possible to converse. Whenever someone says a conversation must begin, we should understand them to mean that the conversation is over. All the arguments have been deployed, all the facts have been revealed, and there has been what the English call a division. Once there has been a division, its all over but the shouting.

  2. I’m going to go with 2.

    Supposedly Starbucks customers are more liberal than Dunkin Doughnuts customers (someone did a study). So it probably won’t hurt their business and might even help it.

    But neither you nor Radix commented on the silver lining here:
    “….including a variety of perspectives on race.”

    So undoubtedly we’ll get the Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire, et al perspective on race in the inserts. Maybe they’ll even hire Jared as a part time barista.

  3. I expect this will go over like Jimmy Carter and the metric system. But then again, not quite. People remember that. (Some of us remember the commercial where boys trying to start a baseball game explain how to covert the base distances.) This will be forgotten in a matter of months.

  4. I’m sure they plan for the shouting to only go one way. “a variety of perspectives on race” means both black grievance-mongers *and* their white liberal supporters. That’s what they’ll get, too. If you like your job, or even just the peace that comes from the media not whipping up mobs against you, you know better than to contradict anti-racists in public. They know you can’t talk back. “Nation of cowards” indeed.

  5. 4. This won’t happen.

    Or, more accurately, it will happen just enough that there will be one or two more news stories about it, then it will stop. Nobody is this stupid.

  6. Dr. Bill’s right. The offer will expire very soon.

    Before it does, that Craig Bodeker dude should get a job as a Starbucks barista. He can film his conversation. I bet it would go viral real quick. Lots of (internet) publicity for race realism.

  7. Wait, so social schelling points prohibiting discussion of religion and politics aren’t enough for this doofus? Why doesn’t he invite folks from the Kingdom Hall down to make people equally uncomfortable? They’ll do it for free.

  8. An honest and open conversation about race would be a disaster for progressives. Seriously it would. I hope it happens.

  9. Bear in mind this is the same company whose CEO told gay marriage opponents to invest elsewhere, so I doubt an “honest and open conversation” about anything is even something of which Starbucks is institutionally capable.

  10. Now I’m tempted to go to Starbucks just to horrify some dolt with salient truths on race.

    Why do I get the feeling this is going to be almost 98% whining about thugs getting shot by cops?

  11. Over at The Daily Stormer we were talking about trolling SB’s with remarks like “Do you know how many White women are raped by Black men every year?” or “My best friend’s sister was raped and murdered by a Black serial killer,” and then segueing into Israel’s restrictive immigration policies or the truth about the “Holocaust.”

  12. The plan is stupid, but not THAT stupid. It’s a relatively homogeneous group of people who have the time, inclination, and disposable income to sit around in the middle of the day chatting over $4 cups of coffee. They’re probably already on board with the “message,” and they’re perfectly comfortable talking about it amongst themselves.

    It does make me curious, though, where everyone ELSE goes for their coffee. Or are the general demographics of midday coffee drinkers that skewed?

  13. Just go in there and order a “tall blonde white latte.”

  14. > Over at The Daily Stormer we were talking about trolling SB’s with remarks like “Do you know how many White women are raped by Black men every year?”

    If that starts happening, Starbucks will install cameras and force everyone to pay by credit card so that thought criminals will know they will be hunted down.

    “Social consequences”, you know.

  15. […] Bonald notices one obvious advantage to CEO Howard Schultz move: The Starbucks’ barista can get some use out of that humanities critical studies degree after […]

  16. Well that didn’t lask long. I guess DrBill was right.

  17. Yes, too much potential for conversations they can’t control, I guess.

  18. The liberals are attempting to drive us out of the Church. Jess xx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: