Starbucks: A Follow-up
This post is a continuation of Starbucks: Keeping a Tight Lid on Freedom of Speech.
Following is the overly tactful and judicious e-mail I received from Starbucks Customer Relations:
Ryan,
Starbucks is committed to contributing to our communities and to the environment. We provide our support through monetary contributions, product donations and through The Starbucks Foundation.
Starbucks provides donations and sponsorships to nonprofit organizations in the following areas: the work of young social entrepreneurs, literacy, the environment, local communities, and programs in coffee-growing communities.
We believe our partners (employees) are the best resource we can offer, therefore we also support organizations in which they are active volunteers. This ensures that our investments touch the neighborhoods where Starbucks partners live and work.
Please note that as a rule, Starbucks does not donate to individuals, programs that promote or endorse a specific religious affiliation, political candidates, or for-profit organizations. This includes the donation of space inside of our store locations (ie: community boards).Sincerely,
Julie S.
Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
And here is my response:
Julie,
It is obvious that Starbucks is trying to make a positive impact in the communities it occupies. However, I am very sad to hear that you consider the usage of your community board as a "donation of space" and therefore something that cannot be extended to religious or political entities.
Although this type of policy is certainly within your right as a private corporation, it is nevertheless an attempt, in my opinion, to homogenize the atmosphere of dialogue within your restaurants, and avoid anything which might run counter to the beliefs or loyalties of your customers. The only possible result is a bland environment which insults people's intelligence by assuming that they cannot co-exist with ideas which are not complementary to their own.
I say this not for my own benefit. (There are plenty of other places to put up my harmless and extremely unoffensive posters. In fact, not only have I lost interest in promoting our worship gathering at Starbucks, I've lost interest in your company at every level.) I say this because I believe the public deserves better, and that Starbucks has failed to live up to the culture of insightful and challenging dialogue that has characterized the coffeehouse environment for centuries.
Sincerely,
Ryan Wiksell.
Posted at 6:10 PM
View 6 comments made so far
Add a comment
Links to this post
6 Comments:
It certainly does seem extreme. But apply their argument when the stakes are higher and you'll see that it makes sense. For instance, would they, on an otherwise slow day/time allow a religious group to hold a 'church service' there, complete with verbalized prayer, music, etc.? Perhaps an inconspicuously held Bible study (at which people bought some coffee). But do you see what I'm saying? Not saying I approve of their position, only that it's coherent and consistent.
Think again from their perspective: what if it became widespread knowledge that political and/or religious "advertisement" could be posted in their stores? Conceivably, they could look like the corner of National and Sunshine, or perhaps the local pub in which you can't see in the window for all the posters. Again, probably why you have more respect for that pub than now for Starbucks. :)
Just food for thought. At least you have good alternatives to Starbucks. Ironically, up here it's Starbucks, Caribou, Dunkin (Donuts, that is... but they have good coffee), or some other non-coffee shop that serves coffee. The closest non-chain coffee shop to us (that I'm aware of) is 10 miles away. That's 10, population-packed miles of dense suburbia. There are things I miss about Springfield...
I understand what you're saying, but obviously each establishment has to draw the line somewhere. No one is going to let politics and religion of any and every kind have free reign. In other words, if you've got Wiccans trying to cast spells on fellow patrons, or candidates grandstanding and kissing every baby that comes in, even the most permissive coffee house is going to say something.
On the other hand, it's impossible to keep a place totally free of religion and politics, for reasons we've already aired out.
So the rub lies in the positioning of the line. Starbucks has chosen to consider its community board a "donation of space" to those it deems worthy or "safe". Based on their e-mail to me, it seems they see it as primarily a space to promote themselves, which in some ways is even worse than what initially bothered me about it.
The point is, it's obvious their corporate lawyers have found a way to legitimately censor religion and politics by calling the community board a donation of space. I don't think that's really how they see the board, I think it's just a lame excuse to try to keep things all antiseptic and suburban. Rather than having a community mindset, it's all about risk management.
Terrible PR move for Starbucks, IMHO. Yet they're entitled to hold that viewpoint...
Makes me wonder if something hadn't happened in the past to make them tighten up their policies.
Let's all think positively...Ryan, maybe your presence there may have helped share the gospel in one way or another.
I agree that companies like Starbucks have to draw the line somewhere, but they HAVE drawn a line. They have a "Community Board". It says nowhere on the board "Donation of Space". It would be just as easy for Starbucks to tell an offended customer that they didn't post the "offensive" material, that it was the Community that must have posted it on the Community board.
What offends me is this new way of life that we have created where people and businesses alike have to go to ridiculous measures to make sure that they DON'T offend someone. When, exactly, did offending someone become a crime? If we allow our government and our fellow people to decide that personal offense is a crime, then we allow them to create laws restricting our freedoms to express ourselves and communicate.
Today, it's a just a corporate policy, I realize. However, what society deems appropriate or inappropriate has a huge influence on which laws get passed and which ones do not. Our future could even hold for us an amendment to the Constitution that adds "except politics and religion" to the first amendment. Why not? Everyone seems to think that it's a good rule in social circles. Why not then a law?
It's sad that society has given people who don't know Jesus a perfect excuse not to have to listen to someone who might know Him. And by supporting the continuation of this kind of censorship, you support the loss of our greatest freedom. The freedom to fulfill the first command given to us by God: Go and tell the world the Good News.
We're tracking, bro. The bottom line, I think, is two-fold: (a) Starbucks is first and foremost...ok, ONLY...a business, and the bottom line is all that really matters. They don't give a rip about what coffee houses stood/stand for; and (b) If they allowed political and religious groups to post things on their boards, it could, and eventually surely would, get out of control (remember the bar window). Starbucks is not a community hub. It doesn't intend to be. I'm with you... go give your business to the Mud, or one of the other new places that has popped up. :)
I wonder why a post regarding a lost dog doesn"t conflict with the policy "Starbucks does not donate to individuals, programs that promote or endorse a specific religious affiliation, political candidates, or for-profit organizations."
As for a place I would consider appropriate for thoughtful conversation, Starbucks would not even come to mind! We are fortunate we have better choices in Springfield. McDonalds even has a better coffee product!
For me it is a no-brainer that my money is better spent elsewhere than at Starbucks...i.e. The Front Porch!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home