This week, the reading highlighted the tragic death of George Floyd.

"On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, died after a white police officer, in an attempt to arrest him, knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes as he lay on the sidewalk in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

His death sparked global protests that were captured in more than 77 countries, including the UK, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Lenya, Brazil, China, Japan, and India."

These protests started in communities across the United States and continued into the summer months. As calls for racial justice and systemic change echoed in streets across the nation, many businesses were also trying to find ways to respond that addressed the "why" question that Gordon describes in the reading for this week: Why should an organization prioritize diversity and inclusion as part of their values, missions, and business?

Although many companies struggled, and continue to struggle, to address these complex questions, the example of Starbucks stands out as a view into this complex problem.

In response to the murder of George Floyd, Starbucks announced on Twitter that they "stand in solidarity with our Black partners, customers and communities." A few days later, they tweeted a commitment to supporting Black Lives Matter, confronting bias and racism, and to "being a part of change."

But their internal actions told another story. Several days after their Twitter announcement, news outlets learned that employees were banned from wearing shirts, pins, or any other visible support of Black Lives Matter. An internal memo revealed that such items violated the company's dress code policy, which also includes political, religious, or personal accessories or clothing. In addition, Starbucks argues in a memo that it prohibits employees from wearing any Black Lives Matter items for their own safety, explaining, "There are agitators who misconstrue the fundamental principles of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement -- and in certain circumstances, intentionally repurpose them to amplify divisiveness."

However, Starbucks not only exempts items celebrating LGBTQ+ and Pride identities, they also developed products to distribute to employees during Pride month. In addition, concerns about safety are absent.

Once this news broke, there were outcries from employees, managers, advocacy groups, and consumers that called for an end to the apparent double standard. On June 12, 2020, Starbucks reversed its position that had prohibited employees from wearing Black Lives Matter paraphernalia. In a new statement from the company, Starbucks said it's "critical to support the 'Black Lives Matter' movement as its founders intended and will continue to work closely with community leaders, civil rights leaders, organizations, and our partners to understand the role that Starbucks can play, and to show up in a positive way for our communities." In addition, the company unveiled BLM branding materials, including t-shirts and pins that they pledged would be sent to employees. In addition, the company pledged $1 million to organizations "promoting racial equity and more inclusive and just communities."

This is not the first time that Starbucks has had to confront its own system of internal bias. In 2018, the company closed over 8,000 locations and offered diversity training to over 175,000 employees in response to a white Starbucks employee who called the police on two black customers. The company also responded with a major public relations campaign, which included full-page apologies in major newspapers across the country.

In considering the case of Starbucks, address the following questions.

• What are the points of bias in this case?
• What parties are affected by bias (employees, consumers, management, etc.)?
• What is the relationship between the biases and the values of the organization?
• What three steps should Starbucks take to help mitigate bias within the organization?