What hurts South Dallas more – crime or the hasty reporting of crime?

A recent headline in The Dallas Morning News sent its readers a chilling message: “Dallas has had 200 murders in 2019. Here’s what that means.” [i]  It reminded everyone of the unfortunate consequences of urban growth and the absence of sensible gun control. With 40 homicides recorded for the month of May according to news reports,[ii] Chief of Police Hall requested that Gov. Gregg Abbott send state troopers to assist the under-staffed Dallas Police Department to help control the alarming rise in homicides.[iii] 

Although few specifics were provided on the type of support that the state troopers provided,[iv] news reports indicated that it was focused on the South Dallas community, that community residents felt that the troopers presence did more harm than good and created a sense of distrust.[v] This sense of distrust of DPS troopers was underscored by the slaying of a black resident in South Dallas who was stopped for failing to signal a turn.[vi] Although conflicting reports emerged about whether the victim had drawn a gun or not, the Texas Department of Public Safety declined to release video footage of the incident, and the two state troopers were not indicted for the incident.  The victim had been shot 16 times by the state troopers – five times in the front and four times in the back of his torso according to the autopsy report.

This is not the first time that South Dallas has been singled out in reports related to increased crime.  Interestingly, the Dallas Morning News story further explained that the “majority of homicides occurred in South Dallas zip codes” but did not provide its readers any detailed crime statistics to support this conclusion.[vii]

Adding fuel to the fire was a recent study of South Dallas published in Urban Science [viii] by two social scientists who concluded that “South Dallas is safer than only 13% of the cities in Texas and there is a 1 in 17 chance of becoming a victim of any crime.”

In providing such a disparaging picture of South Dallas, one would hope that journalists and social scientists are doing their due diligence in analyzing crime data.  Unfortunately, that is not always the case.  

Indeed, other independent analyses provide a different picture of crime in South Dallas. For example, D Magazine[ix][x] and NBC 5[xi] recently released news stories that addressed the pattern of homicides by including a map of City of Dallas 2019 homicides produced by Robert Mundinger (www.themap.net). According to these stories, homicides were “pretty much everywhere.” Figure 1a below displays the map of homicides included in the NBC 5 story which illustrates the wide dispersion of homicides throughout the City of Dallas, which is similar to the map included in the D Magazine stories on the same topic.  While the map provides a general illustration of the distribution of homicides, it lacks important information about the boundaries that define which city council districts are included in the South Dallas and non-South Dallas sectors.

I produced the map below (Figure 1b) which presents the current city council district boundaries and council person names to better illustrate the geographic distribution of homicides, especially when drawing conclusions about the concentration of such crimes between South Dallas and non-South Dallas districts.

Figure 1b:  Distribution of Homicides by Dallas City Council Districts (N = 161)

Neither of these two maps, however, display all of the homicides for 2019 since complete information was available only for 164 cases in Figure 1a and 161 cases in Figure 1b when these maps were produced. These missing cases, of course, could change the overall pattern of homicides displayed by these two maps.

In addition to the lack of geographic precision in previous news reports, I decided to verify the 2016 crime rates in South Dallas reported in Urban Science by the two social scientists. My statistical analysis of 2016 violent and property crime rates using Dallas Police Department data revealed that the South Dallas crime rates reported in the Urban Science article were highly inflated and not supported by the sources that were cited in the published study. My analysis also confirmed that violent and property crimes were distributed throughout the City of Dallas and not overly concentrated in South Dallas.[xii]

Why the contradictory picture of homicides in South Dallas?  The contradictory picture of homicides may result from several factors. First, it is likely that the rush to report changes in homicide rates that reinforce pre-existing perceptions of crime in South Dallas may be one factor that precludes a more careful analysis of crime patterns. Secondly, South Dallas is composed of several council districts whose crime patterns can vary considerably.  Thirdly, Dallas County – whose population consists mainly of the City of Dallas -- is among the top ten fastest growing counties in the U.S.[xiii], suggesting that an increase in the number of homicides could be a consequence of population growth as well.   

The consequences of inconsistent crime reporting are problematic for several reasons.  It is well known, for example, that the perception of high crime rates in urban communities has been a key factor in slowing their economic development.[xiv]  While some neighborhoods in urban communities may indeed show high crime rates, is it fair to stigmatize an entire community based on crime incidences in smaller neighborhoods?  Moreover, is it fair to stigmatize a community based on inaccurate or inflated crime rates?  Perhaps a closer look at crime patterns in the City of Dallas may help us to re-think what we currently know about crime rates in South Dallas.     

A closer look at the pattern of homicides in the City of Dallas challenges conventional thinking about crime. A more complete picture of 2019 homicides was obtained by accessing the Dallas Police Department’s NIBRS reports of crime activity dated as of 12-31-19.[xv]  Figure 2 below presents the distribution of the 207 homicides by council districts located in the South Dallas and non-South Dallas sectors of the city. From this chart, it is clear that a slight majority (56.0%) of the homicides occurred in the South Dallas districts, while less than half (44.0%) of the homicides occurred in the non-South Dallas districts.

Interestingly, the number of homicides varied greatly within the two sectors. For example, a higher number of homicides occurred in District 4 (n=34), District 7 (n=30), District 8 (n=23), District 2 (n-22), and District 10 (n=17).  In addition, several of the districts in the South Dallas sector revealed a relatively low number of homicides (District 1 (n=8), District 5 (n=11), and District 3 (n=10) when compared to some districts in the non-South Dallas sector.  Thus, individual districts in the non-South Dallas sector are also contributing to the overall number of 2019 homicides. However, what are the relative changes in the overall share of homicides since 2018 for the South Dallas and non-South Dallas sectors? This answer to this question is addressed by Figure 3 below. 

Figure 3 compared the change in the percent of total homicides between 2018 and 2019.  It is evident that the share of homicides in South Dallas districts declined from 66.5 percent in 2018 to 58.0 percent in 2019, while the share of homicides in non-South Dallas districts increased from 39.0 percent in 2018 to 47.0 percent in 2019. Thus, council districts in the South Dallas sector appear to be making progress in reducing their share of total homicides in 2019, while an increasing share of 2019 homicides has shifted to districts in the non-South Dallas sector – an important trend that should not be overlooked in future interventions by state and city leaders.

Figure 4 below examines changes in the number of homicides from 2018 to 2019 for each council district. First, the net change in homicides was considerably less (n=7) for the South Dallas districts when compared to the non-South Dallas districts (n=30).  It is particularly noteworthy that during this one-year period, three of the South Dallas districts showed decreases in the number of homicides, while most non-South Dallas districts showed increases in the number of homicides.    Indeed, only one non-South Dallas district (District 6) showed a decrease in the number of homicides.  Based on this analysis, it seems that the recent deployment of state troopers was misguided by the singular focus on the South Dallas community.

Lastly, I was curious about the geographic distribution of the 40 homicides that were previously reported for May of 2019 and used as justification by City leaders to invite DPS trooper support from Gov. Gregg Abbott.  In searching the same sources of police incidents used in this report, only 25 homicides were confirmed for May of 2019. Table 1 below summarizes the geographic distribution of these 25 homicides.

Table 1:  Distribution of Homicides for May 2019

District	No. Homicides
South Dallas
District 1	1
District 4	6
District 7	5
District 8	1
Subtotal	13
Non-South Dallas
District 6	3
District 9	3
District 10	1
District 11	2
District 12	2
District 14	1
Subtotal	12

 

As is readily apparent from Table 1, the number of homicides in the South Dallas and non-South Dallas sectors were nearly identical.  Consequently, one is left to wonder why the state troopers focused their intervention primarily on South Dallas.

Conclusion:  In summary, it seems that some improvement is needed in the manner that crime is analyzed as well as decisions that are based on these analyses.  In the case of social scientists, there is really no excuse for inflating crime statistics using unreliable sources.  Crime reports that lack geographic detail are likely to lead to misguided interventions, such as the state troopers that were sent to the South Dallas community that perhaps should have been directed to other non-South Dallas council districts that were experiencing relatively more increases in the number of homicides since 2018.

It might also be a good idea to recognize districts that show yearly progress in reducing the number of homicides or at least not showing any increases in the number of homicides.  Both journalists and social scientists need to exercise greater care in reporting crime trends in general, but particularly for communities like South Dallas whose quality of life has been negatively impacted by incomplete or inaccurate crime reports. Indeed, the sources of crime data used in this report are publicly available and not overly complex to analyze. 

The recent announcement by Chief Hall[xvi] about initiating a “predictive policing” plan offers some promise for reducing  crime by creating an intelligence-led policing unit that will “produce regular reports to forecast trends, identify patterns, and facilitate a more accurate picture of who is committing a crime and where….it will also generate a list of known offenders, active gang members, parolees, and sex offenders for each focus area.”  Some activists and community members, however, expressed skepticism and felt that the new plan will lead to racial profiling and more aggressive police tactics towards the victims of crime.

The predictive police plan, coupled with a more careful analysis of the geographic distribution of crime patterns, should help to direct interventions to the communities that show the greatest need – not just the usual suspects.

  

Reference Notes

---

[i] Garcia, N. (2019, Dec. 20). Dallas has 200 murders in 2019.  Here’s what that means. The Dallas Morning News.  Accessed at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/12/20/dallas-has-had-200-murders-in-2019-heres-what-that-means/

[ii] Jaramillo, C.  (2019, June 7).  Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott announces he’s sending state troopers to Dallas to tackle violent crime. Dallas Morning News. Accessed at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/06/08/texas-gov-greg-abbott-announces-he-s-sending-state-troopers-to-dallas-to-help-tackle-violent-crime/

[iii] Byrne, E. (2019, June 7).  Gov. Gregg Abbott deploys DPS to combat Dallas violent crime spike. The Texas Tribune. Access at https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/07/Texas-governor-Greg-Abbott-DPS-Dallas-crime/

[iv] Jaramillo, C.  (2019, June 7). Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott announces he’s sending state troopers to Dallas to help tackle violet crime. The Dallas Morning News, Accessed at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2019/06/08/texas-gov-greg-abbott-announces-he-s-sending-state-troopers-to-dallas-to-help-tackle-violent-crime/

[v] Perez, G. (2019, August 5). Are state troopers in South Dallas doing more harm than good?  Texas Standard,  Accessed at https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/are-state-troopers-in-south-dallas-doing-more-harm-than-good/

[vi] Jaramilllo, C. (2020, January 3). South Dallas man slain by DPS troopers after traffic stop had 16 gunshot wounds, autopsy shows.  The Dallas Morning News.  Accessed at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2020/01/04/south-dallas-man-slain-by-dps-troopers-after-traffic-stop-had-16-gunshot-wounds-autopsy-shows/

[vii] Ibid, Garcia N. (2019).

[viii] Crowe, J., Lacy, C., and Columbus, Y. (2019).  Barriers to food security and community stress in an urban food desert. Urban Science. Accessed at  https://www.mdpi.com/2413-8851/2/2/46

[ix] Wise, K. (2019, December 13). Dallas homicides are pretty much everywhere. D Magazine.  Accessed at https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2019/12/dallas-homicides-are-pretty-much-everywhere/

[x] Shinneman, S. (2019, December 18). Explore this updated map of Dallas’ 2019 homicides.  D Magazine, December.  Accessed at https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2019/12/explore-this-updated-map-of-dallas-2019-homicides/

[xi] Kathoff, K. Dallas homicides happening all over the city.  NBC 5 Dallas-Ft. Worth.  Accessed at  https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/dallas-homicides-happening-all-over-the-city/2271971/

[xii] Rincon, E.T. and Tiwari, C. (2019).  Construction of a Demand Metric for Supermarket Site Selection: A Case Study of South Dallas. Presentation at Applied Geography Conference, Charlotte NC, October 24, 2019

[xiii] Census Bureau, New Census Bureau estimates show counties in South and West lead nation in population growth. Release No. CB 19-55, Table 3 Top 10 Counties in Percentage Growth: 2017-2018.  Accessed at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/estimates-county-metro.html

[xiv] Ibid, Rincon, E.T. and Tiwari, C. (2019). 

[xv] City Council Briefing, NIBRS Crime Briefing, Reported through Tuesday, December 31, 2019.  Accessed at http://www.dallaspolice.net/resources/CrimeReports/NIBRS%20Weekly%20Admin%20Council%20Report%20New.pdf

[xvi] Jaramillo, C. (2020, January 3).  ‘Predictive policing,’ part of Chief Hall’s crime plan, raises concerns.  The Dallas Morning News.  Accessed at https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2020/01/04/predictive-policing-part-of-chief-halls-crime-plan-raises-concerns/

Texas Politics and Hispandering

The first debate debate between Senator Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke was intensive and covered many issues of substance to Texas voters.  Interestingly, news coverage of the debate also highlighted the accusation by the Cruz campaign that Beto O’Rourke was engaging in “Hispandering” – that is, trying to win favor among Latino voters by use of his Spanish nick name.  According to O’Rourke, however, the name “Beto” was given to him at birth and a common nickname in his birthplace of El Paso that he has used throughout his lifetime.   It seems curious that the Cruz campaign has focused attention on this issue since Senator Ted Cruz opted to change his own birth name from “Felito“ to Ted because of the taunting that he faced as a teenager and the need to reshape his image. 

For the record, the practice of “Hispandering” has been popularized in past political campaigns by Republicans like Gov. Gregg Abbott who have had no reservations about showcasing their Latino wives and family members, and using Spanish-language ads to gain political favor among Latinos.  The pandering becomes more salient in these campaigns since the programs and policies supported by Gov. Abbott and Senator Cruz are often damaging to the quality of life for Texas Latinos, including the following:

• Associating Latino immigrants with high crime rates despite scientific evidence that disputes claim;
• Supporting voter ID laws that limit Latino  voting rights and civic participation;
• Separating families, mostly Latinos seeking asylum, and placing them in detention centers;
• Planning to eliminate legal immigrants from receiving food and healthcare benefits if they cannot support themselves financially; and
• Supporting the Trump administration that has constantly disparaged Latinos, immigrants, African Americans and women.

By contrast, Beto O’Rourke supports programs and policies that directly benefit Texas Latinos, as well as other groups. He has voiced strong support for the Dream Act, measures to improve gun control, increasing attention on the violence towards African Americans by law enforcement officials, and universal healthcare.  O’Rourke’s position on these issues represents a fresh approach that is desperately needed to replace the punitive political platforms of Republicans like Senator Cruz, Gov. Gregg Abbott, and President Trump. Indeed, showcasing Latino family members and speaking Spanish when it is politically convenient seems more like “Hispandering” than using a name that one is given at birth. 

I would encourage all Texans to get past the name calling and trivia often associated with political campaigns, and focus on programs and policies that are being advocated by the political candidates. Texas Latinos, in particular, should easily dismiss the “Hispandering” by Republican candidates who seek their votes during election season but once in office, dedicate much of their political careers to supporting programs that damage the quality of life for Latinos.   

All things considered, I believe that Beto O’Rourke is on the right path to victory to be our next Texas senator.

Ethnic Cleansing: Trump’s New Strategy

     

          If you were under the impression that ethnic cleansing takes place only in other countries with maniacal dictators, perhaps it is time to reflect on the recent behavior of President Trump in regards to recovery efforts in Puerto Rico following Hurricane Maria.  By some accounts, the disaster recovery in Puerto Rico was a clear example of the deliberate and prolonged neglect of a large segment of U.S. citizens.

An estimated 3,000 Puerto Rican residents died as a result of Hurricane Maria – not just from the immediate storm but also from the inadequate recovery efforts that allowed too many victims to suffer from the limited access to clean water, food, transportation and medical attention. The level of human misery in Puerto Rico, which continues to this day, was apparently of little consequence to President Trump who boasted that the recovery effort was one of the most successful in U.S. history.  Making matters worse, President Trump even now rejects the estimate of 3,000 deaths from Hurricane Maria, suggesting that the high death estimate was merely a political ploy by Democrats to “make me look bad.”   

Trump’s suggestion that the 3,000 deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria was a political ploy by Democrats is consistent with other conspiracy theories that point to his detachment from reality, including such things as:

·        Promotion of the birther theory regarding President Obama;

·        The claim that Muslims celebrated 9/11 on rooftops;

·        Suggesting that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination; and

·        Claiming that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election.

President Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Puerto Rico and its leadership, even delaying the waiver of the Jones Act to expedite the delivery of needed resources. Indeed, his disdain for other non-white and immigrant groups has been shown through statements and policies, including the separation of Latino children from their families;  legal action to end the DACA program;  travel restrictions based on religious beliefs;  and the consistent derogatory statements made in reference to Mexicans,  Haitians, black athletes, and war heroes like the late Senator McCain.  More recently, the Trump administration announced the transfer of $10 million from the FEMA budget to ICE  -- an action that further underscores the priority placed on the removal of unwanted groups.  Perhaps it is time to ask: Is President Trump developing a program of ethnic cleansing? 

As defined by a United Nations Commission, ethnic cleansing is defined as follows:   

“….rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. “

Since he became president, Donald Trump has implemented a number of programs that could fall under this definition of ethnic cleansing,  including  arbitrary arrest and detention; confinement in ghetto areas (i.e., families in detention centers); forcible removal;  displacement and deportation (i.e., even asylum seekers);  deliberate attacks or threats of attacks on civilians (i.e., especially protestors at campaign rallies); and robbery of personal property (that is, seizure of personal property from forcibly removed persons). 

Although Trump has yet to implement some of the most coercive practices that have been utilized globally by current and past dictators, following is a listing of the various practices that have been used to achieve the objectives of ethnic cleansing:

• Murder
• Torture
• Extrajudicial executions
• Rape and sexual assaults
• Severe physical injury to civilians
• Use of civilians as human shields
• Destruction of property
• Attacks on hospitals, medical personnel and locations with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem, among others.

Without intervention by legal advocates and human rights organizations, one wonders how many of these most coercive practices President Trump would implement given the opportunity and growing support by his conservative base.  Yet, the withholding and delay of needed emergency assistance and the resulting 3,000 deaths of Puerto Rican citizens presents tangible evidence that President Trump has added a new dimension to the ethnic cleansing formula. 

Apparently, it is not enough to separate families, deport asylum seekers, place immigrant children in detention centers, and publicly disparage immigrants and non-whites – it now appears acceptable to simply delay or withhold emergency assistance in order to punish or remove unwanted segments of the U.S. population.  To say the least, this is a disturbing development and made equally frightening by the many “pro-life” Republicans who choose to remain silent on this issue.

Anti-Immigrant Bashers: Time to Look in the Mirror

For many political campaigns, the immigration issue is being elevated as the winning formula for energizing conservative voters who have grown increasingly intolerant of immigrants.  Governor Gregg Abbott, Lt. Governor Dan Kirkpatrick, and Senator Ted Cruz are among the many politicians who have spared no expense in bashing immigrants to advance their campaign objectives. No amount of objective information is likely to change the sentiments of these politicians, who are more likely to follow President Trump’s mantra of dismissing factual information as “fake news” and using isolated instances of crime by undocumented immigrants to paint the entire immigrant community as criminals. Without a doubt, this strategy has been effective in energizing the conservative voter base that supports these politicians.

As conservatives continue their immigrant bashing, however, it might be a good idea for them to simply “look in the mirror” and reflect on the extent to which immigrants – undocumented and legal – have influenced their own experiences and lifestyles. Consider the following points:

·        We are all descendants of immigrants: Unless you trace your ancestry to indigenous tribes of America, you are probably a descendent of previous immigrants who were motivated for the same reasons to start a new life in the U.S. How would your ancestors feel about your current perceptions of immigrants?

·        The real criminals.  Isolated crimes by undocumented immigrants often lead to public outcries for the deportation of immigrants or limits to legal immigration. Historically, white males have been responsible for most of the mass murders in the U.S.  Are you spending any time bashing white males?

·        Taking jobs.  Immigrants are often characterized as taking jobs away from native-born residents. Restrictions on immigration have led to labor shortages in such industries as construction, agriculture, hotels, and restaurants --  leading to higher prices and food shortages. How many native-born friends or family members do you know that are applying for these jobs?  Probably none.

·        Public health safety. Immigrants are often blamed for bringing diseases to the U.S. that threaten public safety. Recent health studies, however, confirm that middle and upper-income white families are the least likely to have their children immunized for highly contagious illnesses like measles and mumps.  Should the standards for public health safety be lowered for the more privileged families?

·        Intellectual competitiveness.  An estimated 70 percent of all patents obtained by top U.S. universities were developed by immigrant inventors. It is very likely that you have benefitted from these inventions in past years. Should the U.S. settle for being less competitive in the global marketplace by limiting the admission of immigrants to U.S. universities?

·        Consumption practices. Look at the product brands that you have purchased for your home or business – automobiles, computers, appliances, toys, etc. In all likelihood, most of these products were manufactured in foreign countries.

·        School quality. What schools are your children attending and how did you select that school?  If school academic ratings were an important selection factor, it is very likely that these ratings were elevated by immigrants who tend to be high achievers and valedictorians.

·        Defense of our country.  Many immigrants have lost their lives in past wars in defense of the U.S. and continue to play an important role in global military operations due to their unique language skills and cultural knowledge. Should immigrants be discouraged from participation in the U.S. military?

While is not likely that any of these points will change the behavior of political candidates who make it a practice of demonizing immigrants, perhaps it might encourage their constituents to re-consider their support of such candidates as they reflect on the many ways in which immigrants influence their collective quality of life.

Unconscious Bias at Starbucks? I don’t think so.

So sitting in a Starbucks and waiting for a meeting with someone is now considered a disturbance that warrants calling the police.  Apparently, a Starbucks store manager in Philadelphia recently decided to call the police on two African American males who were simply waiting for a third person to arrive before making a purchase and starting a meeting. A video captured by a store customer illustrated the embarrassing moment of being handcuffed while observers stared in disbelief.  I have been a loyal Starbucks customer for many years, have held many meetings there that required some waiting time, but have never, ever been required to buy something or leave the premises. Curiously, news reports have described the incident as an example of “unconscious bias”  --- presumably an action by the manager that was done unconsciously or without intent. I don’t buy that.

Why?  Because recent history tells us that such behaviors are not so “unconscious,” but rather deliberate efforts to act out strong beliefs that are held about selected groups of persons.  For example, a news story in the Dallas Morning News described how a police academy in Cambridge, Massachusetts was training new recruits to administer extra doses of pepper spray to disable Latino suspects.  Why?  Because it was believed by the training staff that Latinos and other dark-skinned persons eat and pick hot peppers – thus developing a higher tolerance for pepper spray.  The training program might have been considered an act of “unconscious bias” if not for the fact that it was part of the approved training program.

A second example in the medical area relates to a study about pain management. The researchers administered a test to medical residents and practitioners regarding biological facts and myths about African Americans, such as, “Black skin is thicker than whites,” “Blacks’ nerve endings are less sensitive than whites,” and “whites have larger brains than blacks.”  In a simulated experiment of treating black and white patients, it was found that the medical staff who believed such false statements made more errors in the medical treatment that they recommended to black patients.  Unconscious bias?  Perhaps, but the medical staff were aware of their beliefs, recorded them on the test, and consciously decided to act on these beliefs.

Like many other companies, Starbucks also makes deliberate, conscious decisions regarding the location of their stores which impact the quality of life in many communities.  The following three maps vividly illustrate that Starbucks locations in Dallas County have generally avoided communities of color as well as lower income areas. 

Figure 1 below, for example, displays the location of Starbucks stores by the household median income of Dallas County households in 2016. Even communities with median incomes of $100, o00 or higher in the south, west, and southeast part of Dallas County reveal few Starbucks stores, suggesting that lower income alone does not explain these location decisions.

Figure 2 below shows that few Starbucks stores have been established in predominantly black communities.

Similarly, Figure 3 below shows the same pattern for Latino communities.  That is, Latinos have little access to Starbucks stores in the communities where they are concentrated.

To long-time residents of Dallas County, it is perhaps not surprising that the vast majority of Starbucks stores are principally located in the northern parts of Dallas County where higher income, white families are concentrated. After all, the price for a cup of coffee from Starbucks may be out of reach for lower-income persons. But the maps show that middle to higher-income areas in communities of color are also being avoided by Starbucks.

Another interesting theory that is frequently discussed in online forums is that “blacks do not drink coffee” – a belief that was reinforced by basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal who decided not to invest in Starbucks when presented the opportunity by its CEO. Most blacks, however, do drink coffee as revealed by research cited in the Journal of Nutrition: 61 percent of U.S. black adults drink coffee, compared to 76 percent of whites and 80 percent of Latinos.   What else should one consider to understand the picture presented by these maps?  Is “unconscious bias” influencing the site location decisions by Starbucks’ executives? If so, will a workshop for these executives also change their behavior?    

To their credit, the Starbucks organization recently announced that they are establishing a new store in the re-developed Southwest Center Mall in southern Dallas, which will also serve as a workforce training site for its predominantly black community.  It’s a good start but leaves considerable room for improvement.  It would indeed be interesting to determine if similar location patterns exist in other U.S. communities with a high presence of blacks and Latinos.

In my view, the Starbucks manager in Philadelphia that requested police action to remove the two black customers was not motivated by “unconscious bias,” but rather by conscious beliefs and prejudices against blacks that were not detected in the screening process by Starbucks staff.  These beliefs are a consequence of many factors – family values, a past negative experience, media stereotypes, and growing racial segregation in residences, churches, schools, and social networks – factors that are very resistant to change. In addition, the current political climate in the U.S. has “normalized” racist commentary and behaviors towards blacks and Latinos, making it much easier to mistreat these groups.  While it is common practice for organizations to screen applicants for job skills, personality, career and criminal background,   it seems that screening for knowledge and beliefs about blacks and Latinos should also be part of the hiring process.  Why wait for an incident like the one in Philadelphia to occur that can rapidly blemish the reputation of an entire organization?

The CEO of Starbucks should be commended for wasting little time in personally apologizing to the two black men for their discriminatory treatment, and announcing that all Starbucks employees will be required to attend a workshop to identify and remediate unconscious bias. New employees will also be required to participate in this training program. This training, however, will likely have minimal impact on employees that hold negative beliefs or inaccurate information about groups that they dislike. These bad apples – whether current employees or new hires -- need to be fired or rejected from the organization, not just simply diagnosed as having unconscious bias and hope that a one-day workshop will somehow remediate this hostility towards black or Latinos.  I remain hopeful, nonetheless, that Starbucks’ renewed energy will include better screening practices of employees as well as clear policies with consequences when culturally diverse customers are mistreated by its employees. And it would not hurt for the company to re-examine its site location strategies in Dallas-area communities of color and perhaps similar communities throughout the U.S.