Everyday acts of systemic racism such as racial profiling, racial microaggressions and racial violence are a terrifying reality for racially and ethnically minoritized students, faculty and staff at predominately White institutions across the United States. As these occurrences continue, these institutions have attempted to address the violence and blatant racism through hiring diversity consultants, offering workshops and establishing multicultural affairs departments.
Yet, the insidious and blatant forms of racism remain intact. As Black women scholars who have been invited to serve as campus consultants around issues of racial diversity, we often grapple with this work, knowing that despite our efforts, racism and White supremacy are here to stay.
During our recent time at the American Educational Research Association Conference in New York City, we learned about the now-infamous Starbucks incident and our first reaction was, “Here we go again…” However, through further reflection and discussion, we arrived at a few conclusions regarding how Starbucks addressed the racial profiling and arrest of two Black men and what higher education leaders at predominately White institutions can learn in the aftermath. We share them below:
Responding with a sense of urgency
While it is not completely clear when the Starbucks Corporation or its CEO Kevin Johnson received word that two Black men were surveilled and racially profiled by the store manager and subsequently arrested on suspicion of trespassing in that Philadelphia Starbucks location, we are aware that within 48 hours of the incident, the Starbucks Corporation issued a formal apology on Twitter and a written and video statement from Johnson was released.
This is three forms of communication within a truncated amount of time. Johnson expresses a personal apology and accepts full responsibility for the situation that unfolded. Moreover, Johnson does not downplay the situation. Instead, he condemns the local and corporate business policies and practices that made such a discriminatory and unfortunate outcome possible, as well as outlines the immediate next steps to addressing the root issue: racial profiling and discrimination.
Johnson also centers the lives and experiences of the men who were unjustly victimized. In short, Johnson did what we wish more institutional leaders would do, that is, respond with a sense of urgency that communicates more than a desire to maintain the institution’s reputation and respond to public outcry. More often than not, institutional leaders either don’t respond quickly enough, respond defensively when students protest, offer a half-hearted apology that infuriates rather than resonates, or simply don’t show up.
