FIRST READING: In latest sign of woke retreat, Starbucks walks back ‘anti-racist’ bathroom policy

TOP STORY

In yet another signal of institutional retreat from so-called “woke” policies, Starbucks Canada has announced that non-customers are no longer welcome to use their bathrooms or lounge areas.

In a statement to CBC, the coffee chain said it was part of their “Back to Starbucks” plan to restore the “café experience” to its 1,500 Canadians locations.

“By setting clear expectations for behaviour and use of our spaces, we can create a better environment for everyone,” it wrote.

Restaurants restricting their facilities to paying customers is pretty standard, but Starbucks’ return to such a practice is notable given that the coffee chain’s prior “open door” policy was one of the signature planks of the corporation’s much-publicized embrace of “anti-racist” doctrine.

In 2018, Starbucks was the subject of widespread controversy after a store manager in Philadelphia called the police on two black men who occupied a table without making a purchase, and refused entreaties to either buy something or leave.

In response, Starbucks closed all 8,000 of its U.S. stores for a day in order to put employees through a course of implicit bias training. The company also instituted an official policy of being agnostic as to whether someone using their facilities had bought anything.

“Any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes, and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer,” Starbucks said in a code of conduct published at the time.

In 2020, Starbucks Canada published its official Anti-Racism Action Plan policy, touting the open door policy as an example of its commitment to “creating a welcoming space for all.” “It’s not enough to ‘not be racist,’ our humanity demands that we be anti-racist,” it read.

The aftermath of the 2018 Philadelphia incident received far less press attention.

In 2023, Philadelphia regional manager Shannon Phillips, who was fired after the incident, was awarded $25.6 million in a discrimination suit against the coffee chain.

Phillips, who is white, successfully argued that her race had factored into her dismissal as Starbucks sought out a “sacrificial lamb” to “convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident.”

Amid rising rates of urban disorder, the coffee chain has also been forced to begin shuttering locations for safety reasons. In 2022, it closed 16 locations across five U.S. cities, citing rising incidents of open drug use and violence targeting staff.

Last year, a Starbucks in Winnipeg was suddenly closed following a sharp spike in nearby violent incidents. In 2023, a Vancouver Starbucks became the scene of a particularly shocking public killing. Paul Schmidt, 37, asked another patron not to vape in front of his daughter, and was stabbed to death.

Starbucks retreating on its anti-racist policies is in line with a trend sweeping both U.S. and Canadian corporations.

Just this month, McDonalds abandoned a diversity program that pledged to prioritize hiring and procurement based on “underrepresented” races. This follows on Wal-Mart announcing in late 2024 that it would no longer mandate anti-racism training for employees, or prioritize suppliers based on racial characteristics.

Molson Coors, one of Canada’s largest brewers, announced in September that it was dropping a policy of “representation goals” that set out racial quotas for employees.

“Moving forward, we will assess our work to build a strong company culture based on our own internal metrics, your feedback and our success in serving our customers,” said the company in an internal memo.

Recent months have also seen more than 200 U.S. universities roll back “diversity, equity and inclusion” policies, be they mandated diversity statements, racial quotas in hiring or anti-racism training.

Canadian are definitely behind their U.S. counterparts in this regard, although the University of Alberta did just announce it was shelving its “diversity, equity and inclusion” mandate for a new policy of “access, community and belonging.”

IN OTHER NEWS

As Canada’s various political leaders attempt to coordinate a response to threats of crushing import tariffs imposed by the new U.S. administration of Donald Trump, there’s been a bit of disagreement over what exactly Canada might do if Trump follows through with the threat. Here’s a loose summary of the various positions:

• Everybody favours some kind of retaliatory tariff. Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre promised in an interview this week that if he was prime minister, he “would retaliate.” And former Alberta premier (and Conservative cabinet minister) Jason Kenney told CTV “we can’t be wusses about this. We have to have a spine.”
• The Liberals and Ontario Premier Doug Ford are talking about shutting off energy exports. Alberta vehemently disagrees. The Trump tariffs would already impose an immediately noticeable impact on U.S. fuel prices, as they would instantly add a 25 per cent surcharge to Canadian oil imports. But Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly and Ford, among others, have suggested cutting off energy exports altogether, including electricity. This has prompted some very public disagreement between Ford and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, with Smith saying a total suspension of oil exports would prompt a “national unity crisis” under which she would not be able to contain the passions of her own people. Ford countered that Smith is not “speaking for the country.”
• NDPers want to retaliate with a shutdown of critical minerals. NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has been bandying about the idea of shutting off Canadian exports of minerals such as lithium and cobalt, which are critical to the manufacture of U.S. electronics and other tech items. Fellow NDPer David Eby, premier of B.C., also pitched the minerals idea in a speech to the B.C. Natural Resources Forum.
• Trudeau hasn’t gone into much detail on the specifics. He’s only said that any Trump tariff might be matched “dollar for dollar,” and that any tariffs would be lifted immediately after the Americans back off.