Last Sunday, Starbucks announced its plan to hire 10,000 refugees in the next five years. Naturally, America became ever more divided - just as it has been since the new president's inauguration.
While some applauded Starbuck's actions, others are threatening to boycott the coffee shop after this announcement, many of whom are Donald Trump supporters. This came as a response to Trump's recent executive order to bar immigrants from seven typically Muslim countries (including Iran, Iraq and Libya) from entering the United States.
The CEO, president and chairman of the international coffee chain, Howard Schultz, has long since endorsed the Democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton, in last year's presidential election. It was not unprecedented for his company to make a stand against Trump's questionable executive order. Furthermore, he has been quoted in the letter affirming the employees of Starbucks of the plan that they are "witness to conscience of our country, and the promise of the American Dream, being called into question."
On one hand, Trump supporters and surprisingly many others - given the protests that occurred over the weekend against the new president's executive order - boycotted the coffee chain. They claimed it was taking away jobs from American citizens, especially after unemployment across America rose from a nine-year long low to 4.7%, with nearly 7.5 million people still unemployed in America. Surely jobs such as those at Starbucks - that do not require a specialist degree for those unable to have access to education due to social or financial opportunities - should be given primarily to Americans, purely in the interest of their country's economy.
Furthermore, when Starbucks is creating 10,000 new jobs that will certainly not go unnoticed. Many are boycotting on the basis that it should be given to the long-term unemployed (over 27 weeks or more) of whom there are 1.8 million in America. For the sake of future generations, surely jobs should be given to those to support families who have faced the difficulties of unemployed parents for over six months or more?
Many also claim they are facing a stronger terrorist threat. That, in the words of a Twitter user, the Starbucks Immigrant Employment plan "puts refugees before American safety." Others were also angry that Starbucks was choosing to implement a plan to hire refugees over veterans, when Starbuck's have only hired 8,000 veterans and military spouses since 2014, in comparison to the promise to hire 10,000 refugees.
People are also protesting against Starbuck's political stance; why should they have to be overwhelmed by politics when simply trying to purchase their morning's coffee? Another Twitter user questions whether others are "sick of Starbucks CEO's pushing HIS political agenda through our coffee and down our throats?"
In my opinion however, Starbuck's stand against Trump's executive order is justified. Despite the United States unemployment rate only falling 0.2% since January 2016 to December 2016, the American values of democracy still stand; that all should be welcome, and all should have access to jobs offered in America. Even if many believe the Native American people should have access to the jobs in their country first, the courage shown behind the principle should be carefully considered. For such a brand to make a significant political statement, just as they have done ever so fearlessly in the past (such as introducing a green up a week before 2016's presidential election in order to promote unity and bandage the rift between the two parties and their supporters) is hugely significant. The company knew they were going to create a backlash; that they were "politically brainwashing" and should stick to making coffee, even with the certain knowledge that many Trump supporters were bound to not provide them with a revenue over the next however many weeks.
Yet they still took a stand against his executive order, which is a feat that should be applauded by the masses, especially given the thousands that protested when Trump's Immigration Ban was acted upon.
In conclusion, many people are choosing to boycott Starbucks due to, in my opinion, unjustified reasons. These include the rising rates of unemployment in America, both long and short term, and that American jobs should be prioritised and given to American citizens rather than refugees. They also argue that encouraging more refugees into the United States in a threat to security, despite having no evidence to proof that immigrants act as any threat to public safety and that Starbuck's should simply stay out of political affairs. This disregards fundamental American democratic values.
I think we would be right in listen to Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, quoted as warning that "American values" are in question over this issue. Perhaps we should rather be applauding Starbuck's stand against Trump's executive order that crushes democracy and American values beneath his Brioni suited self.
Molly Russell, Sydenham High School
