Discrimination and Abercrombie & Fitch

[shanek]

Abercrombie & Fitch is now facing a discrimination lawsuit because their advertising cultivates "an all-white look" and that that "Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable jobs and favorable work schedules."

I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue, but here's an article on Mises.org that I think brings up some of good points on this issue:

"If you look at the material they put out, they are cultivating an all-white look," said Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "It is difficult to understand why, given that their target age demographic is even more heavily minority than the rest of the population, they would choose to do this."

In other words, Abercrombie and Fitch, a constant winner in the voluntary "dollar-vote" elections of the market, is accused of being an intensely racist company in both its employment practices and its product marketing.

Regardless of the intentions and supposedly prejudice nature of Abercrombie and Fitch's corporate policies, and the steps it may or may not take in making employment and marketing decisions, the lawsuit brought against the company is an embodiment of either misunderstanding or old-fashioned ignorance.

Clearly, this case is characterized by the same absurdity that all discrimination lawsuits and legislation share, a failure to recognize the nature of individual preference and the harmonizing activities in the free market.

Although many individuals will not hesitate to deny it, everyone discriminates on a daily basis. The fact of the matter is that discrimination is nothing more than the active demonstration of preference. Human interaction has been composed of discriminatory actions since the dawn of the race. Individuals make decisions and act on those decisions based on what they perceive to be most beneficial to them at a specific point in time.

One may choose coffee over tea, or enroll in an economics class over a sociology class based on their preference, clearly discriminating against the other. Likewise, an individual may wish to apply for employment with a particular company while a decision-maker of a company may wish to hire a particular individual corresponding to their perceived benefits. Discrimination is the fundamental exhibition of liberty, an individual's ability to make decisions and act out in accordance with those decisions.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the Abercrombie and Fitch discrimination case would no doubt bring many more lawsuits of the like before the courts. The fact of the matter is that there would be no difference between this particular case and a case brought by a Caucasian against FUBU for its "all-black" look, or a male against Victoria's Secret for catering to women, or an elder against The Gap for not favoring the elderly. Basically, discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1278

[Goshawk]

Basically, discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free.
Right, but that's in the abstract, in an ideal world. In the real world, however, most upscale clothing retailers realize that "diversity" is "in", and even if you know that the only people who buy your stuff are WASPs, still it looks good to have your advertising be multi-ethnic.

I don't shop at A&F and so am not aware of their ad campaigns, but if the charges are true, it betrays an extraordinarily poor grasp of the social issues and forces at work today.

Even Bergner's understands this.

http://www.bergners.com/style/default.jsp?dept=01&prodID=0102

http://www.bergners.com/style/default.jsp?dept=03

[Tony]

The real racists are the people bringing the lawsuit.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue....

I'm sure your point would be received better, if you would not exhibit the very same bigotry and bias you accuse your imaginary enemies of.

[Ed]

A&F (the old A&F that was REALLY elitist) used to have a gun room on the 4th floor of their NY store (treir only store at the time). Thousands of guns and a sterling plated 20mm deck cannon.

The party ended when some dickweed brought a cartridge in, asked to see a gun, loaded it and blew his head off.

BTW I can advertise to whoever I wish. I only have to answer to my Board.

[DavidJames]

"discrimination is in no way, shape, or form criminal, rather, it is nothing more than the exhibition of preference, which is legal in a society that calls itself free."

I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

[corplinx]

Believe it or not, dark-skinned people and fair skinned people look better in different colors. For instance, a mustard colored shirt will much better favor the dark-skinned person. There are stores in my town that cater to black fashion. So why should it be any surprise that a store sells mostly "white" fashions? I don't know if the allegations are true, but even if they are I could care less.


Discimination in employment practices is a much different issue though.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Right, but that's in the abstract, in an ideal world. In the real world, however, most upscale clothing retailers realize that "diversity" is "in", and even if you know that the only people who buy your stuff are WASPs, still it looks good to have your advertising be multi-ethnic.

Which makes the lawsuit even more nonsensical. If they really are racist, let the b@$7ards shoot themselves in the collective foot.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

I'm sure the usual anti-Libertarian bigots on this board will just take one look at the source and fall on their usual tactic of claiming bias (with no evidence at all) and thus not have to actually examine the issue, but here's an article on Mises.org that I think brings up some of good points on this issue:


No need, this is yet another perfect example of why Libertarianism is a fundamentally flawed philosophy.

The federal government isn't suing A&F, its private citizens. In a Libertarian society citizens would be free to do the same, this has very little to do with the government.

The only difference would be in the Libertarian courts the process would not be regulated and the plaintiffs could sue for a hundred billion dollars and win, as long as the jury awards the damages.

The Libertarian society would be LESS free as lawsuits would either bankrupt businesses or force astronomical price inflation to cover the litigative expense.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm sure your point would be received better, if you would not exhibit the very same bigotry and bias you accuse your imaginary enemies of.

Have you ever actually READ the responses I get to the threads I make? Pretty much the only ones where I don't get jumped on for spouting "liberarian propaganda" from "biased sources" are the ones where I call these people out from the start. And even that's no guarantee.

If you find it so distasteful, then why don't you call out others whenever they do thta instead of rebutting the actual arguments? Or is it because all you want to do is take down me, and support anyone who is trying, and you're willing to deny any such tactice by your side in the process?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all.

So, do you go eat at Burger King and Wendy's every time you eat at McDonalds? Preferring one over the others would be discriminating, you know! Do you have as many friends that are believers in the moon hoax, psychic powers, or Q-Ray bracelets as skeptics? Better make sure; wouldn't want to discriminate any. And I'm sure you've bought a book by John Edward for every one of Randi's that you own, right?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all.

So, do you go eat at Burger King and Wendy's every time you eat at McDonalds? Preferring one over the others would be discriminating, you know! Do you have as many friends that are believers in the moon hoax, psychic powers, or Q-Ray bracelets as skeptics? Better make sure; wouldn't want to discriminate any. And I'm sure you've bought a book by John Edward for every one of Randi's that you own, right?

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/ppmsc/00200/00213r.jpg

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

[Tony]

EvilYeti, your proud ignorance is starting to border on parody.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm glad I don't live in a country that believes such nonsense.

You're glad you dont live in a country that believes in free thought and free-association? Hmmm... I thought that is what america was about.

[DavidJames]

"You're glad you dont live in a country that believes in free thought and free-association? "

I must congratulate you on not using the term bed wetter.

"Why is it nonsense? If it is nonsense, then that means you don't discriminate in any way at all."

:rolleyes:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony
EvilYeti, your proud ignorance is starting to border on parody.

Tony,

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

[kittynh]

well as far as I can tell A&F sell to 12-18 year old little white girls, and a few gay guys and boy bands.

It screams, "I'm a teenager wearing my teenager uniform and have no creativity or ability to think for myself! Please tell me what to wear, I will wear anything with your logo on it!"

Teens love it as mom won't be caught dead in it. No use wearing Tommy or Ralph if mommy is wearing it too.

But, I think GAP makes money, and talk about diversity in advertising! Hey, put all whites in your ads, but you have to hire fairly. That's a law.

A&F is about safety and security. It's the Leonardo De Caprio of clothing.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

So are they going to sue Victoria's Secret next for catering exclusively to females?

Face it; people are not all exactly identical, but certain aspects are similar enough that the market becomes open for specialties. In some cases, it is gender, in some cases it is colour. You won't find a white model on the box of afro-sheen, and you won't find many black men wearing bras in the window of Victoria's. Most of America's sub-cultures are race-oriented, and the fashion market will target these sub-cultures as readily as they'll target the elderly with their advertisements for Depends.

Is it really that bad that whites should get their own fashion? Every other race has theirs, so why not whites as well?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek


Have you ever actually READ the responses I get to the threads I make? Pretty much the only ones where I don't get jumped on for spouting "liberarian propaganda" from "biased sources" are the ones where I call these people out from the start. And even that's no guarantee.

If you find it so distasteful, then why don't you call out others whenever they do thta instead of rebutting the actual arguments? Or is it because all you want to do is take down me, and support anyone who is trying, and you're willing to deny any such tactice by your side in the process?

Is it possible to blame you for anything? Seems not.

[ArmchairPhysicist]

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

A&F doesn't have a sign on the door that says "White customers only"; they produce a product that is intended to appeal to a particular group. You don't have to be in that group to buy their merchandise.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by ArmchairPhysicist

A&F doesn't have a sign on the door that says "White customers only"; they produce a product that is intended to appeal to a particular group. You don't have to be in that group to buy their merchandise.

Doesn't matter. The official LP party position endorses the rights of business' to engage in discrimatory and racist behavior, as cited above.

I'm curious whether Shanek agrees or not.

I suspet he does but won't admit it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

If you knew anything at all about the situation, you would know that the separate entrances were the result of GOVERNMENT LAWS, not the desire of the businesses.

But, I guess little things like the TRUTH don't matter to a troll like you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
:rolleyes:

Your complete inability to answer a direct question has been noted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is it possible to blame you for anything? Seems not.

Is it possible for you to accept and acknowledge criticism? Seems not.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


If you knew anything at all about the situation, you would know that the separate entrances were the result of GOVERNMENT LAWS, not the desire of the businesses.

But, I guess little things like the TRUTH don't matter to a troll like you...

Lets try this again, Shanek.

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

[corplinx]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Lets try this again, Shanek.

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

I do. I even support their right to have only one door labeled "blacks only". As long as the building isn't a government building.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Lets try this again, Shanek.

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You didn't listen to a word I said, did you? The fact that the business had separate entrances didn't have ONE SINGLE THING to do with what they wanted! They were FORCED to BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Why would a business, even a racist one, go through all the expense of setting up a completely separate entrance with a completely separate door just so blacks could go through one door and whites through another? It makes no sense at all to anyone but government. Find one example of a store doing this without any government regulation requiring them to and then we'll talk.

Here's a bit of info you're apparently not privvy to: When the laws were first passed to segregate the bus seats, the bus drivers and companies refused to uphold the law, just allowing everybody to sit where they wanted, regardless of race. They didn't start enforcing it until the government started forcing a policeman on every single bus where the law wasn't being self-enforced. When the bus driver told Rosa Parks to move to the back of the bus, he wasn't doing so out of hatred of blacks, but out of fear of the government!

All the Civil Rights movement initially wanted was for these stupid, racist, ANTI-FREEDOM laws to be overturned. But the government, seeing as it always does an opportunity to expand its power, started to convince everyone that laws needed to go the other way, to interfere in every internal aspect of a business, and anyone who is against that is obviously a racist who doesn't care about the plight of the poor, suffering minorities.

Which is EXACTLY the same crap you're trying to spew by asking this question. And you know it, too. You're just a troll.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


If you knew anything at all about the situation, you would know that the separate entrances were the result of GOVERNMENT LAWS, not the desire of the businesses.

But, I guess little things like the TRUTH don't matter to a troll like you...

Governments that were voted in. You don't live in a dictatorship. The laws reflect the values of the constituents.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


You didn't listen to a word I said, did you? The fact that the business had separate entrances didn't have ONE SINGLE THING to do with what they wanted! They were FORCED to BY THE GOVERNMENT!

Why would a business, even a racist one, go through all the expense of setting up a completely separate entrance with a completely separate door just so blacks could go through one door and whites through another? It makes no sense at all to anyone but government. Find one example of a store doing this without any government regulation requiring them to and then we'll talk.

Here's a bit of info you're apparently not privvy to: When the laws were first passed to segregate the bus seats, the bus drivers and companies refused to uphold the law, just allowing everybody to sit where they wanted, regardless of race. They didn't start enforcing it until the government started forcing a policeman on every single bus where the law wasn't being self-enforced. When the bus driver told Rosa Parks to move to the back of the bus, he wasn't doing so out of hatred of blacks, but out of fear of the government!

All the Civil Rights movement initially wanted was for these stupid, racist, ANTI-FREEDOM laws to be overturned. But the government, seeing as it always does an opportunity to expand its power, started to convince everyone that laws needed to go the other way, to interfere in every internal aspect of a business, and anyone who is against that is obviously a racist who doesn't care about the plight of the poor, suffering minorities.

Which is EXACTLY the same crap you're trying to spew by asking this question. And you know it, too. You're just a troll.

Lets try this again, Shanek.

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by corplinx

I do. I even support their right to have only one door labeled "blacks only". As long as the building isn't a government building.

Thank you for your response. Now why won't Shanek answer the question?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Governments that were voted in. You don't live in a dictatorship. The laws reflect the values of the constituents.

Except that in this country, we have a Constitution that is supposed to stop the government from infringing the rights of its citizens and businesses, regardless of how many people voted for whom.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Thank you for your response. Now why won't Shanek answer the question?

Because the question, like "Have you stopped beating your wife?", is rooted in a lie.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that in this country, we have a Constitution that is supposed to stop the government from infringing the rights of its citizens and businesses, regardless of how many people voted for whom.

I think you have just answered my question.

It was a curious division between the Left and Right in Australia when the Left wanted to bring in a Bill of Rights, much as the US has one. The Conservatives opposed it, primarily because they oppose anything the Left proposes, but also because they claimed that writing them down doesn't really achieve much and may even be restrictive of them.

I don't know how true that is, but the Australian Constitution was modelled on the US one. Both countries, give or take a bit here or there, are roughly equivalent in the freedom of their people.

[Jude]

Do you support the right of the above business to have seperate enterances for whites vs. coloreds?

You may answer "yes" or "no".

Yes. They'll quickly learn that such conduct isn't acceptable by society, though. They'd either end up changing their business policies, or outright going bankrupt as a result of the mass boycott. The media would be in a frenzy over such a business. Rush Limbaugh had to resign from his position at ESPN for significantly less subtle bigotry, for Pete's sake.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It was a curious division between the Left and Right in Australia when the Left wanted to bring in a Bill of Rights, much as the US has one. The Conservatives opposed it, primarily because they oppose anything the Left proposes, but also because they claimed that writing them down doesn't really achieve much and may even be restrictive of them.

That's the whole idea—to restrict government.

How does your point answer any kind of question that you've asked here?

[American]

On this issue, I agree with all my usual sworn enemies. This is a pathetic display of needless envy and self-victimization taken to a new level. They may as well go through census records and sue individual caucasians for violating their civil rights by "acting white" all the time. Oh god, I just gave the trial lawyers an idea, didn't I....

[kittynh]

right...anyone here watch MTV lately? Once again white teenagers who are cool have "stolen" black fashion and music. A&F is for young immature teenage girls and gay guys. Once you hit 16 you go for FUBU and Sean John. "Shake Your Tailfeather", once you've outgrown Avril, or Good Charlotte...

It's wonder bread fashion. A mature white teen girl, a straight white teen guy, and ANY black teen would not be caught dead wearing it.

[toddjh]

Why hasn't anyone commented on the meat of the lawsuit? That A&F has a discriminatory employment policy? Reading the article, most of the talk about marketing and the "white look" seems to be just the lawyers' rhetoric.

Jeremy

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by toddjh
Why hasn't anyone commented on the meat of the lawsuit? That A&F has a discriminatory employment policy? Reading the article, most of the talk about marketing and the "white look" seems to be just the lawyers' rhetoric.


I pointed this out right away, I said I could not see how this story pertains to Libertarian politics. Its a case of private citizens suing a private business. If it goes to trial it will be decided by a jury of other private citizens. Government has very little to do with it.

[Gem]

A lawsuit filed in federal courts in recent weeks reportedly states that "Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable jobs and favorable work schedules."[

If true, this would be a racist policy. I don't see why they have to bring in style into the equation.

There really isn't a problem with catering to "white style" or "black style" or whatever. If blacks prefer this type of style more than whites, and a business supplies this style, it's not racist. A white person can buy a shirt from the style if they want to.

The problem comes when the "discriminated" is not ALLOWED to buy the product. For example, a wedding clothier seller refusing to sell their gowns to a black woman (as stupid as it sounds, let's assume they do this).

And yes, this would be unprofitable. But that doesn't mean it won't be done. The owner may feel he gets more "benefit" from this than costs. The racist also has to get publicity. Assuming A&F is racist, who among you here would know about their racist policies? Heck, what kind of 16 year old will know?

Gem

Edited to add: Yes Shanek, your source is bias, BUT it is not relevant to the current issue, as this is an opinion, and by definition, biased. So bias is no issue.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Gem

If true, this would be a racist policy. I don't see why they have to bring in style into the equation.


They do this so they can blow smoke over the real Libertarian agenda, which is no government regulation of business. This means the LP supports the right of employers to discriminate based on race.

This is not a very popular viewpoint, so the Libs dishonestly build a strawman regarding this lawsuit, claiming it is about "style" and "preference". Its not, its about racial discrimination in the workplace.

Every wonder why you never see black Libertarians? Now you know.

As usual all shanek and his ilk are interested in is enforcing the status quo for rich whitey.

[Gem]

"If you look at the material they put out, they are cultivating an all-white look," said Thomas Saenz, vice president of litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "It is difficult to understand why, given that their target age demographic is even more heavily minority than the rest of the population, they would choose to do this."

Thomas Saenz isn't a libertarian, to my knowledge. Why he brings it up, is a good question, though I assume is to grow PR sympathy for the case.

Like I said before, cultivating an "all-white look" isn't a problem. But discriminating employees based on thier race IS racism and according to the source:

A lawsuit filed in federal courts in recent weeks reportedly states that "Abercrombie discriminates against blacks, Hispanics and Asians by enforcing a nationwide corporate policy of preferring white employees for sales positions, desirable jobs and favorable work schedules."

THAT's where there's a problem.

And from their orginial source
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2003-06-17-abercrombie_x.htm
Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) hires a disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in less-visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in its catalogs and elsewhere, a lawsuit charges.

The "all-white image" however could be dismissed.

Gem