The Incident On April 12, 2018, At Starbucks In Philadelphia

The Incident on April 12, 2018 at Starbucks in Philadelphia

The assignment involves analyzing the incident that occurred on April 12, 2018, at a Starbucks in downtown Philadelphia, where two African-American men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, were arrested after sitting in the store while waiting for a friend. The incident was widely publicized due to footage showing police officers arresting the men while they were waiting in the store without making a purchase. The event sparked national conversations about racial discrimination, police conduct, and corporate responses to social justice issues. The analysis should explore the legal and ethical implications of the incident, Starbucks' policies and response, and broader societal impacts, including issues related to racial bias, public perception, and organizational accountability.

Paper For Above instruction

The incident at Starbucks in Philadelphia on April 12, 2018, stands as a significant moment in ongoing discussions about racial bias, law enforcement conduct, and corporate responsibility in the United States. In this case, two African-American men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, were detained and arrested after sitting in a Starbucks while waiting for a friend, without making any purchase, and despite their explanation that they were meeting someone. The events, captured on video and shared widely on social media, revealed a troubling pattern of racial discrimination that resonated across the nation and prompted widespread criticism of Starbucks, local police, and broader societal issues.

Analyzing the incident from a legal perspective involves understanding the framework surrounding trespassing and public accommodations. Under U.S. law, private businesses such as Starbucks are considered public accommodations and are required to provide service without discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity, as mandated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, private property owners retain the right to enforce rules about behavior and determine who may and may not be allowed to remain on their premises. Businesses can request individuals to leave for disorderly conduct or disruptive behavior, but such bans must not be rooted in discrimination (Govorov, 2020). In this case, Starbucks had no formal policy requiring customers to make a purchase to sit, which was part of its community-centric approach. Nonetheless, individual store managers have discretion in enforcing policies, raising questions about consistency and bias.

The police intervention complicates the legal considerations further. Law enforcement officers justified their actions by citing the store’s request for the men to leave on the grounds of trespassing, as they had not purchased anything and were deemed to be violating store policies. However, critics argued that the police’s arrest was unjustifiable and heavily influenced by racial bias. The officers claimed they were acting within their legal authority, but the incident highlighted issues related to implicit bias—unconscious attitudes or stereotypes affecting judgments (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). The Philadelphia Police Commissioner defended the officers' actions, stating they followed protocol and had legal standing to arrest, but the incident exemplifies how bias and lack of procedural safeguards can lead to discrimination (Bowling, 2019).

Ethically, the incident raises questions about fairness, respect, and equality. Starbucks’ initial response was defensive, emphasizing that it was an isolated event and promising to review policies and conduct training on racial bias. The company’s eventual decision to close stores nationwide for racial-bias training was a step toward addressing systemic issues, but critics argued that more comprehensive reforms were necessary. Ethical corporate responsibility extends beyond immediate crises; companies are expected to foster inclusive environments and implement policies that prevent discrimination before it occurs (Crane & Matten, 2016).

Starbucks’ response also exemplifies organizational accountability. After the incident, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson issued an apology, stating the event was “reprehensible” and reflecting a recognition of the company's need to address underlying issues of racial bias (Starbucks Corporation, 2018). Furthermore, Starbucks announced policy changes allowing anyone to sit in their stores and use their restrooms, regardless of whether they made a purchase. This policy shift aimed to reaffirm the company's commitment to inclusivity and to prevent similar incidents in the future. However, the incident exposed gaps in policy implementation and staff training, highlighting the importance of ongoing education and leadership commitment in fostering equitable practices (Cialdini, 2007).

The societal impact of this event extends beyond Starbucks or Philadelphia. It ignited national protests, led to discussions about implicit bias and systemic racism, and prompted corporate and governmental institutions to reevaluate their policies. The incident also underscored the importance of public awareness and activism in driving change, demonstrating that social justice concerns require continuous attention and organizational willingness to change (Feagin, 2014).

In conclusion, the Starbucks incident on April 12, 2018, serves as a case study of the complex interplay between legal rights, ethical responsibilities, social justice issues, and organizational accountability. It calls for a comprehensive approach that combines legal awareness, ethical principles, policy reform, and cultural change within organizations to combat discrimination and promote fairness and respect for all individuals.

References

  • Bowling, B. A. (2019). Policing and Discrimination: Implicit Bias and Procedural Justice. Law & Society Review, 53(4), 765-789.
  • Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. Harper Business.
  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press.
  • Feagin, J. R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. Routledge.
  • Govorov, V. (2020). Confederate Flags and Constitutional Rights: The Legal Limits of Discrimination in Public Spaces. Journal of Law and Policy, 28(2), 305-331.
  • Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945-967.
  • Starbucks Corporation. (2018). Statement Regarding Incidents at Philadelphia Store. Starbucks Newsroom. https://stories.starbucks.com/
  • U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2020). Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
  • Williamson, J. (2019). Corporate Responses to Social Justice Movements: The Case of Starbucks. Business Ethics Quarterly, 29(3), 345-370.
  • Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Related Assignments