Talking about race

By now, most folks have heard about Starbucks' "Race Together" program, launched just a week or so ago and ended after just seven days. The idea behind the program, according to Starbucks' CEO Howard Schultz in a memo to partners, was to "stimulate conversation, empathy and compassion toward one another, and then to broaden that dialogue beyond just our Starbucks family to the greater American public by using our scale for good."

Starbucks was sharply criticized in the media and public for the effort for being, among other things, hypocritical, tone-deaf or a marketing ploy to sell more coffee. Schultz claimed that the plan all along was to end the controversial, and supposedly voluntary, practice of having baristas write "race together" on selected customers' cups as a way to initiate dialogue--though skeptics believe the company pulled the plug due to the loud and widespread outcry against this practice. Starbucks will, according to Schultz, carry on with other planned elements of the campaign, as detailed on the company's website.

Video from Starbucks employee forum on race

I will admit that I initially found the concept of the "Race Together" messages on coffee cups a bit strange, too. How would a barista choose who got the message and who didn't? If they write that on my cup, does that mean they think I am receptive to the conversation--or that I'm part of the problem? How do employees really feel about this--about putting themselves between a bleary-eyed customer and their venti mocha in order to further race relations in America?

What I found the most odd, though, was not that a company would have the audacity to step forward to try this social experiment, but that they thought it was a conversation that could be encapsulated into the time it takes to order and pay for a coffee and muffin (have you seen the line at your local Starbucks during rush hour?!) 

Where I disagree with the critics, however, is that I think Starbucks should be applauded for attempting to DO SOMETHING...even if it didn't go exactly the way they might have hoped. They were willing to step up and say, "Whose job is it to start the conversation about race? Anyone and everyone." In my opinion, it was a gutsy and admirable move to use their vast network to address an issue that affects their employees and customers every day, even at the risk of losing customers.

Am I naive enough to think this was a purely altruistic effort? Of course not--in fact, Starbucks' stock price hit a 52-week high the week AFTER "Race Together" was blasted. I don't, however, think it's a bad thing that they profited from this gamble. In fact, I hope this bodes well for other companies with progressive leadership who might be willing to take a bigger risk if they see that their shareholders won't suffer (whether that's the best motivation is a topic for another day...)
____________________________________

On a somewhat tangential note, I saw an interesting play at Mad Horse Theatre last week that also tackles some important questions about race and who gets to decide what is fair. Alligator Road, written by local playwright Callie Kimball, is the story of a white woman, Kathy, who inherits a hardware store in the Florida panhandle from her husband. Kathy decides, in the interest of "reparations," to give the store away to a black woman she meets at a local family shelter. The ensuing dialogue between the store owner and her college-age daughter, as well as with the new owner, Lavinia, and her white husband, raises questions of "white guilt", assumptions we make about people based on race and gender, and how outraged is a person of color "supposed" to be in the face of obvious bias?

The play is not flawless--in some cases I was left wanting more of the backstory on why Kathy is so committed to the idea of reparations (a word she uses repeatedly), as well as more interaction between Kathy and Lavinia....but I thought it was a story with great potential and a powerful message (not to mention a fabulous set featuring handmade yarn "cozies" covering every paint can and power tool in sight!)

Alligator Road is playing at Mad Horse Theatre through Sunday, March 29th

"The University of Everywhere"

I've been thinking a lot since last week's discussion about rural poverty and lack of access to services. This issue is not news to me (or, I'm sure, most of us). My parents both grew up in rural Maine, one in a farming community where probably 80% of the people are related by blood or marriage, and another in a town that was centered around Bass Shoe until Bass began shipping jobs south and across the Pacific. I am also reminded of the disparity every time I field a call on the Alzheimer's Association Helpline from someone in Washington County, Aroostook County, Pistcataquis County (whose low population density qualifies it as a "frontier"), who desperately needs caregiver support and other services that simply aren't available within 2 hours (or even 3) from their home because our agency, like so many others, simply can't afford to staff multiple offices in Maine.

It's loosely in that context that I wanted to share an interesting conversation I had earlier this week with a colleague at my internship, about a "Fresh Air" podcast with Kevin Carey, author of The End Of College: Creating The Future Of Learning And The University Of Everywhere. Casey believes college in its current form merely serves to perpetuate privilege--with tuition for a bachelor's degree at a private institution often exceeding a quarter million dollars over four years, it's not hard to see his point. Certainly, there are exceptions, including my cousin's daughter, who grew up in that aforementioned farming town in rural Maine and received a full scholarship to Yale, where she recently graduated with a degree in political science (but I digress). 

In his interview, Casey talks about his experience of taking a class on EdX, which offers free online courses on a wide array of subjects. EdX was originally started as a partnership between Harvard and MIT to create free, open access to the same curriculum and classes their students take (and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for); participating universities now include dozens of institutions in the US and around the world. Casey himself decided to take a biology class that is required of all first-year MIT students, whom one would presume to be some of the brightest minds in the US (and the world). This is not a watered-down free version--it is the same class, with the same lectures, assignments and final exam that is required of all first-year MIT students, whom one would presume to be some of the brightest minds in the US (and the world). Casey was proud to earn a final grade of 87/B in the class, which was taught by someone who was involved with the Human Genome Project (i.e., no slouch!). But what he found most interesting is that, among the thousands of people who took the class, only about 100 earned a perfect score on the exam--one of those was a teenager in Mongolia. As he notes, this kid was literally about as far away, geographically (and demographically/socioeconomically, I'd guess) from MIT as anyone on planet earth...yet he had the same intellectual ability and potential (perhaps more) than many students who are fortunate enough to be able to attend one of the world's most prestigious universities. In fact, that same kid ended up becoming Mongolia's first-ever student at MIT. Pretty amazing.

I find it incredibly exciting to think of the potential a system like EdX has to create opportunities for people in rural areas--whether a world away or right here in Maine--to access a world-class education and feel empowered to imagine possibilities for their futures that may never have seemed realistic before.