State of the Profession: The Starbucks Effect
By Martin Snyder
Okay, let me be up front about this. As a lifelong tea drinker, I just don’t get this gourmet coffee thing. Why folks in my neighborhood are willing to stand in line at the crack of dawn to pay three bucks or more for a cup of coffee and then wait in line again while some bleary-eyed barista whips the murky swill into a froth is a mystery to me. So, given my general indifference to the world of coffee, it is hardly surprising that I was one of the last to learn about the Starbucks effect, the gradual and apparently inexorable spread of the gourmet beverage phenomenon from upscale urban coffee bars to every gasoline station-cum-convenience store along the interstate system.
More surprising yet was my discovery that the Starbucks effect had actual traffic repercussions. The Washington Post reported last April that, according to one researcher, “the national craving for gourmet coffee may be adding mileage to the morning rush hour. And the numbers might be significant enough to complicate efforts to reduce traffic congestion, save fuel and reduce air pollution.” Apparently, suburban commuters have given up brewing coffee at home and are driving to Starbucks every morning.
It seems that Starbucks is exerting almost cosmic influence on our lives—maybe even endangering the planet—but now it has gone too far. It has signed on with the thought police. In September, the Lariat, Baylor University’s student newspaper, reported that the campus Starbucks had removed about five hundred cups with a quotation from Armistead Maupin after a faculty member complained. Maupin is best known for his Tales of the City series about gay life in San Francisco.
In the offending quotation, Maupin reflects on his own life experience: “My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don’t make that mistake yourself. Life’s too damn short.”
The Baylor Starbucks manager estimated that somewhere between twenty-five to fifty cups were distributed before the complaint was made. Aramark, the dining-services contractor that oversees the coffee shop, agreed to get rid of the cups out of respect for “Baylor culture.” A dining-services spokesperson confirmed that Starbucks headquarters supported the cup removal. “They aren’t intending to generate conflict at all,” she told the Lariat. “Starbucks fully supported our decision because they understand our environment.”
Baylor spokesperson Larry Brumley quickly distanced the university from the decision. Brumley told the Waco Tribune-Herald, “My understanding is it was a decision made by Baylor dining-services staff, and I’ve not been able to trace it back to any Baylor administrators telling them point-blank to pull the cup.”
Starbucks has been using coffee cups with quotations from authors of a wide range of political perspectives as part of its “The Way I See It” campaign. According to the Starbucks Web site, the quotations are intended to spark conversation. “In the tradition of coffee houses everywhere,” the Web site claims, “Starbucks has always supported a good, healthy discussion.”
Maybe this is just a tempest in a coffee cup. Or maybe not. There is no indication that the current Baylor administration played a role in the decision to yank the controversial coffee cups. What is clear is that the atmosphere on the Baylor campus is still perceived to be sufficiently repressive to justify censorship by the dining services and Starbucks managers. All the babble about sensitivity to “Baylor culture” and “our environment” is just so much euphemistic smoke. The coffee may be hot on campus, but the climate for free expression is distinctly chilled.
And let’s hope that the Baylor experience isn’t evidence of yet another dimension to the Starbucks effect. It would work something like this. Advertise yourself as a hip and chic proponent of open discussion. (In other words, get a good gimmick.) Then, as soon as the slightest controversy threatens the corporate coffers, in a stunning display of pusillanimity, cave in to the forces of repression. After all, adherence to principles like the free exchange of ideas is advantageous only as long as it enhances the bottom line.
Perhaps it would be more honest if Starbucks simply removed the “star” M from its corporate moniker.
Martin Snyder is AAUP director of planning and development.
|