Last week, Starbucks announced a campaign to start conversations about race by having its baristas write “RaceTogether” on cups in addition to the customer’s name and specialty drink. The decision came after several baristas attended open forums about race following the deaths of Eric Garner, Michael Brown and other unarmed black men killed by police this past year. On Sunday, Starbucks announced that it would be ending the RaceTogether campaign next week. Starbucks is not new to these types of campaigns--in 2013, its baristas wrote “come together” on cups to encourage collaboration between the political parties deadlocked on Capitol Hill. How do you react to the Starbucks’ “RaceTogether” campaign? Should big corporations discuss politics with their customers and employees?


Prof. Chad Williams (AAAS)

When Starbucks scrapped its “RaceTogether” campaign, it corrected a remarkably ill-advised initial decision. While perhaps well intentioned, the entire idea sadly encapsulated all that is wrong with so-called “conversations” about race that lack substance and clearly identifiable goals.  Critics were correct to pounce on the superficiality of this corporate- driven approach to confronting the still trenchant problem of race in the United States. Starbucks, however unwittingly, disrespected the hard work of anti-racist education by reducing it to a hashtag and transparent marketing ploy. I suspect Starbucks’ decision to cancel the campaign had more to do with profits than moral conscience.  Nevertheless, the episode is a useful reminder that forced conversations about race initiated by people who have no training in facilitating such conversations, much less deep knowledge about the history and nature of racial inequality in American society, can actually be more damaging than productive.  

Prof. Chad Williams (AAAS) is an associate professor of African and Afro-American studies and chair of the department. 


Meredith van der Walde ’15
I think that Starbucks’ “RaceTogether” Campaign is fairly reasonable and expected given the current political climate in the United States. It seems that many individuals, families, organizations and larger institutions have begun to rally behind issues of race and police brutality in one way or another. While people’s viewpoints inevitably vary, the recent killings of unarmed black men remain a prevalent, and usually controversial, topic of conversation. For Starbucks to take a stance, in my opinion, is predictable. Starbucks, like many corporations, probably wants to project an image of itself as a socially conscious company, one that is sensitive to issues of racial and social equality. I do not think there is necessarily a problem with big corporations bringing politics into places of leisure like Starbucks cafes. However, corporations should anticipate that some employees and customers may not react so favorably to these kinds of gestures, especially if the gestures are perceived as deceptive marketing tactics. 

Meredith van der Walde ’15 is the undergraduate departmental representative of the Sociology department. 

Shikha Chandarana ’17

Although I do not reflect the views of Amnesty International because the organization does not have an opinion on this issue, I think that any kind of activism movement is appreciated for something like race relations, and if Starbucks wants to take any initiative for it, I don’t think there is anything wrong with it at all. While I can’t say much about how helpful a campaign like this would be, the fact that large corporations want to get involved with such a human rights movement is a large and positive step towards progress. Writing “RaceTogether” is a small movement, but it is still extremely valuable. I think corporations have a responsibility to talk about injustices and human rights since they have the monetary and the social resources to bring about change. In fact, the presence of corporations in movements like this, involving their employees and customers with these in small ways is, I think, a brilliant way to spread awareness. If a corporation wants to be an active part of any movement, I think it should be encouraged, not questioned. In the end, it should be a choice about how involved they want to be.

Shikha Chandarana ’17 is the co-president of Amnesty International’s Brandeis Chapter.

Shaquan McDowell ’18

In regards to the Race Together campaign, I can see how some may feel that the campaign was inappropriate. I’ve heard members of the African-American community discuss how they feel as though it’s insensitive, as it ignores the element of experience and how that shapes perspectives. It’s important though that we remember that, fundamentally, dialogue must occur for opinions to be shared. The intention of this campaign was not to assert Starbucks to be an expert on race relations yet instead to create an environment where conversation could flourish. It’s important that we aim to keep places of business humanized, generating a comfortable setting for employees and customers alike. When an issue is of obvious importance to the world, to conduct business as if it is irrelevant does only a disservice to everyone. Thus, I do believe conversation is necessary and beneficial to all parties in business, if conducted appropriately. 

Shaquan McDowell ’18 is the co-founder and president of the Purple Party.