By Kathryn Wolper
Recently, Starbucks ended the cup component of its “Race Together” campaign, which met severe social media criticism upon its announcement. The premise of the campaign was to encourage conversations about race in the popular coffee shops by writing “race together” on customers’ cups. Still, critics expressed concerns about the effort seeming forced and opportunistic. ABC reported that Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz called the cup messages “just a catalyst” for more widespread conversations about race. The corporate endorsement of conversations about race relations will continue through different means.
Although the campaign seemed trite and forced to many, the decision to launch such a campaign was nearly as bold as Starbucks’ famously strong coffee. The execution of the endeavor fell flat, but the parties responsible for its implementation understood an important fact about society: coffeehouses and other community hubs are breeding grounds for conversation. Inspiring conversation about topics such as race in community hubs is a step up from the ignorance that plagues many people. Writing “race together” will not solve America’s race problem, but it places race at the forefront of awareness.
A cup of coffee at Starbucks comes at a premium; someone with a daily Starbucks habit might easily spend $50 a month on coffee. At the intersection of class and race, many regular customers likely feel the positive effects of privilege in their daily lives and would not consider race an issue unless their baristas reminded them. Although not every customer makes the leap from awareness to action, some may, and others may be inspired to reevaluate their viewpoints.
Simple awareness does not mend the chasm between privilege and oppression, but it does make the gap more palpable. Critics who claim that it is not a coffeehouse chain’s place to chime in on race must understand that all businesses have a voice. Many businesses choose to stay silent on important issues because they feel that their voices do not belong in the conversation. Silence begets silence, but conversation, however awkward or forced, leads to better, more effective, and more frequent conversations. Starbucks’ blunder shows that companies and individuals must be open to making mistakes and working hard to correct them.
The “Race Together” campaign was imperfect. However, an imperfect conversation is still a conversation. The corporate shame that Starbucks might feel after a failed social experiment may motivate it and other companies to try again and do better. Starbucks’ future plans for the “Race Together” campaign could incite an important dialogue about inequality in America in a more intentional and effective way than the original plans did.
Starbucks will continue to encourage and participate in conversations about race and inequality in other ways. In the face of criticism, Starbucks did not back down and instead changed its approach. Ultimately, starting conversations about race is less about perfection than effort.
