Starbucks discriminates against men and African Americans?

Starbucks discriminates against men

The Illusion of Inclusion: Starbucks, Diversity, and the Marginalization of Black Workers

In today’s culture of corporate accountability, the word “inclusion” is casually thrown around—pasted on mission statements, ad campaigns, and storefronts. But inclusion, when examined closely, often reveals uncomfortable patterns of exclusion. Starbucks is one such case.

While the coffee giant has long branded itself as progressive, inclusive, and socially conscious, its track record and employee demographics tell a more complex story.

A Flashpoint: The 2018 Arrests

In April 2018, two Black men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting for a business meeting. They hadn’t ordered anything. A manager called the police.

The event went viral and became a lightning rod for national conversations on racial profiling. In response, Starbucks temporarily closed 8,000 stores for a one-day racial bias training and revised its policy to allow non-paying customers to sit in stores.

But the deeper question lingers: how could such a situation happen in a company that prides itself on inclusion?

The Workforce Doesn’t Reflect the Hype

According to Starbucks’ own 2020 diversity data:

• 71.4% of employees are women

• 50.3% of workers are white

• 26.6% are Hispanic or Latino

• 8.1% are Black or African American

  • Only around 5.8% are Black women

  • And just 2.3% are Black men

    
    

While this data might appear to show some degree of diversity, the breakdown reveals a skew. A company with hundreds of thousands of employees, yet only a small fraction are Black men, raises concerns about systemic hiring trends.

Culture or Curation?

Anyone who frequents coffee shops might notice a pattern—staffed predominantly by young women, many of whom express alternative fashion, hairstyles, or LGBTQ+ identity.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but when those traits dominate to the point of creating a homogeneous environment, it’s fair to ask: is this authentic diversity, or curated culture?

If inclusion really means embracing a wide spectrum of identities and experiences, then why do certain groups—particularly Black men—seem so absent?

Representation and Geography

It’s possible that Starbucks stores in predominantly Black cities employ more Black workers. But without granular, store-level transparency, this remains a guess. And even if true, national underrepresentation signals a broader issue—one that isn’t solved by demographic pockets of diversity.

When “Inclusion” Becomes Exclusion

There’s a growing trend of corporations framing gender diversity and LGBTQ+ visibility as the main pillars of inclusion. While these advances matter, they shouldn’t come at the expense of racial equity or erase the challenges faced by Black communities. Inclusion should be holistic—not selectively applied.

Starbucks’ diversity efforts appear to elevate some identities while leaving others marginalized. That’s not inclusion; that’s optics.

Final Thought

We can’t allow corporations to use buzzwords as shields. When “inclusive workplaces” become places where certain groups feel unwelcome or unrepresented, we have to question not just the message—but the structure that supports it.

True inclusion is messy, multifaceted, and requires hard, uncomfortable questions. Who gets hired? Who gets promoted? Who feels like they belong?

Starbucks discriminates against menUntil those answers are balanced across the board, companies like Starbucks don’t just have a branding problem—they have a credibility problem.

Source: Starbucks Workforce Diversity Report, 2020