Wake up and smell the coffee

You have to hand it to Starbucks. Just when you thought its CEO couldn’t get more clueless, he has. It was bad when Kevin Johnson jumped the gun last month by calling a manager of a Philadelphia store racist in front of the entire planet – for the “crime” of actually following Starbucks’ policy. It got worse when he kowtowed to the “victims” by lavishing them with praise and gifts. And in a nod to political correctness, he just closed 8,000 stores nationwide so that all 175,000 employees could be indoctrinated with “racial bias” training.

But dumbest of all was instituting the new policy of “inclusivity” – a fantastically meaningless term – whereby anyone can sit in a Starbucks for as long as they like, without buying anything, with free access to its bathroom facilities.

In a recent interview, Starbucks Executive Chairman Howard Schultz called the Philadelphia incident “embarrassing” and “horrifying,” and stated, “‘It was a reprehensible situation that we took complete ownership of.”

The Starbucks leadership did nothing of the kind. Instead of first investigating to ascertain the facts (which, sadly, we will now never know), they leveled horrendous accusations at their own manager for – let’s say it again – following Starbucks’ own corporate policy of providing bathroom access only to paying customers. Had they handled the situation with just a modicum of common sense, while adhering to the principle of innocent until proven guilty, there would have been no “outcry,” no firestorm.

Was the manager overzealous? Possibly. Did she exercise poor discretion? Maybe. But was there one iota of evidence that she was guilty of “racial bias” – the whole reason for the training and new policy? No. Zero. None.

So how exactly can one take “ownership” of a “racial” problem when no evidence of bias existed – especially given that many non-paying whites also have been denied bathroom access? How can the leadership team take ownership for a policy they created, and that their employee followed while their former manager is out in the cold?

If that’s “ownership,” one shudders to think what happens when they pass the “buck.”

Starbucks is a private company, and as such, can do as it pleases. But given its stature as one of the world’s pre-eminent enterprises, one would have thought its leaders would have been smarter in understanding that rash actions have consequences. Rather than approaching the Philadelphia situation methodically and without bias, it jumped the gun in response to loud, but ultimately weak social media critics.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that the Millennials, despite their feigned outrage, would never have followed through on a boycott of their favorite hipster-progressive company, and would have been patronizing the chain again within days, if not hours.

Starbucks has built its brand around enjoying coffee and free wi-fi in a safe, pleasant environment. But how long will that stay intact when junkies realize that an ideal place to shoot up is a free Starbucks’ bathroom? What will be the cost when headlines blare that someone fatally overdosed in the bathroom – and a child discovered the body? How safe will people feel when the homeless start using Starbucks’ bathrooms as their personal showers?

What happens when a group of three or four spends $50 on lattes – and has nowhere to sit? How will they react when the seats they used to occupy – the ones reserved for paying customers – are now taken by freeloaders for hours on end?

Incomprehensibly, it appears that no one at Starbucks has given any thought to these questions – and the consequences that are sure to follow.

Starbucks’ divisive rhetoric aside, it is not “racist” to mandate a purchase as the “price” to use a store’s facilities. In fact, such a policy remains common practice for many businesses, especially in cities.

In its Quixotic quest to appear politically correct, Starbucks is embarking on a very dangerous course. Many have already boycotted the company over what they see as its pandering to the left. Others will avoid the chain for more practical reasons – their concern about the lack of safety, seating and serenity.

Starbucks had better wake up, get smart, and smell the coffee. If it doesn’t, there will be nothing sweeter than watching it choke on its own bitter brew.