Walmart's unintentional, intentional discrimination against African Americans

[Ryika]

There's currently a law suit against Walmart for specifically locking beauty products designed for an African-American audience. According to the woman who is suing Walmart, this is racial discrimination, but Walmart defend themselves by saying it's actually based on data, they claim that these products are simply being stolen more often in that particular location:

Walmart is being sued by a customer alleging racial discrimination. The customer who has filed a lawsuit against the retailer claims that it is segregating products by the race of the people who use them, CBS Los Angeles reported. Essie Grundy was shopping for a comb in her local store when she found it was locked in a cabinet.

"That's when I noticed that all of the African-American products were locked up under lock and key," Grundy told reporters at a news conference on Friday, according to CBS.

"We're sensitive to this situation and also understand, like other retailers, that some products such as electronics, automotive, cosmetics and other personal care products are subject to additional security. Those determinations are made on a store-by-store basis using data supporting the need for the heightened measures," a Walmart spokesperson said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...auty-products-equality-shopping-a8181946.html

Some more sources that cover the same story:
http://www.businessinsider.de/walmart-locking-up-african-american-hair-products-2018-1?r=US&IR=T
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ti-theft-policy-on-black-beauty-products.html
https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/mom-sues-walmart-over-segregated-beauty-products/

This is... somewhat funny to me, and a really interesting case. If we accept the premise that Walmart's decision is indeed based on statistical likelihood of the wares being stolen and not racial profiling by bigoted employers - which I know some people will immediately contest on ideological grounds, but I'll accept it unless somebody makes a good case against the premise - then this is a case where simple risk-management leads to unintentional but clearly visible, racial discrimination as a side effect.

Do you think this is okay? If a decision is based on data of money lost due to thievery, but results in racial discrimination, is it okay and simply a consequence of that demographic being more likely to steal? Or is it still discriminatory? And is there a difference between locking a product that is mostly bought by a racial demographic, and a product that is mostly bought by a different type of demographic ("Old people", "men", etc.)?

Plus, should Walmart consider the consequences of the message they're sending to their customers?

 

[warpus]

Do you think this is okay?

If their methodology is "Product X gets stolen Y% of the time" then yeah.. If something gets stolen often enough, you lock it up, makes sense to me.

but results in racial discrimination

I don't think it's discrimination if they're just going by theft metrics and no other information. But are they? Do we know for sure? Maybe they are indeed being discriminatory and just aren't coming out and saying it.

Plus, should Walmart consider the consequences of the message they're sending to their customers?

They've been locking stuff up since I remember shopping there. I usually see it with electronics. There is no real message other than "we lock stuff up if we think it might get stolen". I see nothing wrong with that message. As for the consequence of the message.. what's the consequence? Shoppers knowing that certain things will be locked up. I don't see that much of a consequence.

 

[Ryika]

I don't think it's discrimination if they're just going by theft metrics and no other information. But are they? Do we know for sure? Maybe they are indeed being discriminatory and just aren't coming out and saying it.

I think it is discrimination, even if they go purely by numbers. Not the "unfairly targeted"-type of discrimination, but clearly the "treated differently"-kind of discrimination. This does of course make some sense, but at the same time I would assume that most people of any demographic are not thieves, and the result here is that the large majority of black people are innocent of being thieves and now have to deal with extra inconvenience (if they want to buy the products that are specifically targeted at their demographic). In law enforcement, we might call it profiling.

They've been locking stuff up since I remember shopping there. I usually see it with electronics. There is no real message other than "we lock stuff up if we think it might get stolen". I see nothing wrong with that message. As for the consequence of the message.. what's the consequence? Shoppers knowing that certain things will be locked up. I don't see that much of a consequence.

Well, if it's a product that is specifically designed for black people (for example a shampoo advertised to work well with African-type of hair), then the implicit message there is: "Hey, black people around here steal a lot". While it might be true statistically that black people steal more than white people in this area, the effect on how people see black people because of that might be much stronger than the actual difference; it might cause black people as a group to be seen much more negatively (or just reinforce negative stereotypes that are already there).

 

[Farm Boy]

Baby formula is often locked up. Closest employee in the Walgreen's I tended to shop at was usually the makeup counter. Often a college-age-ish young woman manning that counter with the key. Interesting study in presumptions watching body language as I approached. Fairly common sequence of facial expressions -

1) <Great, this fat sphincterhole is going to creep on me>
"Can I get some baby formula?"
2) <dawwww>
<unspoken thought> Just get me the formula you judgemental ass.

 

[warpus]

I think it is discrimination, even if they go purely by numbers. Not the "unfairly targeted"-type of discrimination, but clearly the "treated differently"-kind of discrimination. This does of course make some sense, but at the same time I would assume that most people of any demographic are not thieves, and the result here is that the large majority of black people are innocent of being thieves and now have to deal with extra inconvenience (if they want to buy the products that are specifically targeted at their demographic). In law enforcement, we might call it profiling.

Profiling would be "Polish people are more likely to buy product X, let's lock it up"

This simply seems to be a case of "Product X gets stolen all the time, let's lock it up"

Well, if it's a product that is specifically designed for black people (for example a shampoo advertised to work well with African-type of hair), then the implicit message there is: "Hey, black people around here steal a lot". While it might be true statistically that black people steal more than white people in this area, the effect on how people see black people because of that might be much stronger than the actual difference; it might cause black people as a group to be seen much more negatively (or just reinforce negative stereotypes that are already there).

How do we know white people or asians aren't stealing these products? A lot of assumptions all around.

Walmart is in the "selling things" business. If something gets stolen, they will lock it up so people can't steal it anymore. If that makes some people feel crappy for whatever reason, ah well.

Like I said, if Walmart was specifically targetting products that are usually bought by African Americans, then yeah, that's discrimination. But they don't appear to be doing that at all. Prove that they are and I will probably change my opinion.

 

[Synobun]

I'm looking forward to the inevitable "Gotcha!" in this thread where someone says they approve and then get a list of links about police profiling and criminal statistics from a race realist (or Valessa, in their stirring-the-pot ways) saying that this too is good because it's based on facts.

I think the local demographics do play a part in this decision. If it's a predominantly black neighbourhood and it's products geared for black people that are being locked, then it does sort of set off the mental alarms. But in this instance I think it's more likely "unfeeling corporate giant wants to reduce loss" instead of a targeted discriminatory practice by malicious humans.

An easy way to tackle this issue is to simply lock everything in that product category. The products are found in the same aisles and the workload for the employee stays about the same since they would be regularly in that section anyways to unlock sections for customers. It would prevent the thefts they're concerned about and it would give them a viable out if asked about it ("Cosmetics are being stolen from this branch at an extraordinary rate." instead of "Cosmetics designed for black people are being stolen from this branch at an extraordinary rate."). The general public only needs specific metrics when you're being specific in what's being locked away.

 

[BvBPL]

There's currently a law suit against Walmart for specifically locking beauty products designed for an African-American audience. According to the woman who is suing Walmart, this is racial discrimination....

That doesn't sound legally actionable. I'd question the merits of that case.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So is this Walmart like most of them, in that you can never find a clerk or other employee when you need one, or is there actually somebody available at all times, to get this stuff out of the locked counters/cabinets/wherever they put it?

Discrimination works a little differently here. Some stores and malls just assume any aboriginal person is there to steal, and they manufacture an excuse for security to kick the aboriginal person out. It's got nothing to do with specific products.

Or it happens when clerks or floorwalkers follow people who are not white, people who are underage, or just anybody who for some reason they think are untrustworthy. Sometimes it takes the form of asking the customer "Can I help you?" three times in the same five minutes.

 

[Ryika]

I'm looking forward to the inevitable "Gotcha!" in this thread where someone says they approve and then get a list of links about police profiling and criminal statistics from a race realist (or Valessa, in their stirring-the-pot ways) saying that this too is good because it's based on facts.

Anybody who would try to hijack this thread to turn it into a fight about general criminal statistics would be just as unwelcome as your comment about people who might come and try to turn it into a fight about criminal statistics. This is about a very specific case in a very specific area where potential racial discrimination and actions that are done in the interest of the business interact in an interesting way.

And my gender is neither ambiguous nor neutral, so it's "she", not "they", and I know you know that.

An easy way to tackle this issue is to simply lock everything in that product category. The products are found in the same aisles and the workload for the employee stays about the same since they would be regularly in that section anyways to unlock sections for customers. It would prevent the thefts they're concerned about and it would give them a viable out if asked about it ("Cosmetics are being stolen from this branch at an extraordinary rate." instead of "Cosmetics designed for black people are being stolen from this branch at an extraordinary rate."). The general public only needs specific metrics when you're being specific in what's being locked away.

This might actually be a good solution though.

Profiling would be "Polish people are more likely to buy product X, let's lock it up"

This simply seems to be a case of "Product X gets stolen all the time, let's lock it up"

Well yes, but "Okay, something has been stolen, we know the suspect is still around here somewhere, and suspects in the past have been black more often than not, so let's check all black people around first." is also profiling. It may (or may not) be based on proper statistical analysis, but it still discriminates against a demographic.

There is of course a big difference, which is that locking up products does not place people into a position where they're profiled for a crime that they haven't committed, but they are still put into a situation where they are at a disadvantage because of their skin color. (This is of course only true if the premise that these are products that are used predominately by black people is correct.)

How do we know white people or asians aren't stealing these products? A lot of assumptions all around.

We don't, true. But it's the premise under which the person who started the law suit acts.

Walmart is in the "selling things" business. If something gets stolen, they will lock it up so people can't steal it anymore. If that makes some people feel crappy for whatever reason, ah well.

Like I said, if Walmart was specifically targetting products that are usually bought by African Americans, then yeah, that's discrimination. But they don't appear to be doing that at all. Prove that they are and I will probably change my opinion.

No, I'm not saying that they're intentionally targeting African Americans. I'm just pointing at the result, and am interested in seeing whether people think it's a problem or not, or rather, how they value the results (black people being disadvantaged <> fewer products being stolen (hopefully)) against each other.

It's an interesting middle-ground between racial discrimination and the natural results of shops doing their thing that might also cause discrimination against certain demographics, but is justifiable. I think there are arguments for both positions, and both positions are valid in their own way, so I don't even "want" you to change your opinion, because I think it's perfectly fine the way it is. I'm just poking around a bit to see what people think about it.

 

[Synobun]

And my gender is neither ambiguous nor neutral, so it's "she", not "they", and I know you know that.

You forget that I was around when you were telling everyone you were a mid-20s male, then a mid-20s female, and now a girl still in high school and underage. Since you've never made any indication that you're trans, I've taken to referring to you in a way that is respectful of your habit to change identities when the old one grows boring. Today you're a 15 year old girl, next year you'll probably be something else (and it won't be a 16 year old girl). I use "they" when I'm unsure of the person's gender, and that applies here.

 

[Kyriakos]

Is this that much of a hassle to get an employee to unlock the storage place?
It is a bit annoying, but ultimately i am not seeing why anyone should care.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is this that much of a hassle to get an employee to unlock the storage place?
It is a bit annoying, but ultimately i am not seeing why anyone should care.

How many Walmarts have you shopped in? There is almost never an employee around when you want one.

 

[Kyriakos]

How many Walmarts have you shopped in? There is almost never an employee around when you want one.

There aren't any walmarts here. Actually, we don't have that massive stores in the city center (which imo is negative; even Bulgaria has them ^^). We just have the usual ugly block retailers in the periphery, like that swedish money-launderer, Ikea.
In the city center there are large stores, often with many stories, some featuring various companies with their own store, but not monstrous ones of this type.

 

[warpus]

There is of course a big difference, which is that locking up products does not place people into a position where they're profiled for a crime that they haven't committed, but they are still put into a situation where they are at a disadvantage because of their skin color.

Tough luck I guess. The way I see it Walmart is simply protecting their inventory from theft, and they aren't even doing it in any sort of discriminatory or ethnic profiling type of way. If they were, I'd agree that they needs to stop. But unless further information is forthcoming, they don't seem to be doing that at all.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There aren't any walmarts here. Actually, we don't have that massive stores in the city center (which imo is negative; even Bulgaria has them ^^). We just have the usual ugly block retailers in the periphery, like that swedish money-launderer, Ikea.
In the city center there are large stores, often with many stories, some featuring various companies with their own store, but not monstrous ones of this type.

We don't have Ikea in my city. If I want to buy ugly furniture, I can go to Jysk. Their stores aren't that big. As with a lot of places, they do a lot of business online, and some people who order online can now specify if they want to pick the thing up at the store instead of having it delivered to their home (a plus for those who aren't home during usual delivery hours).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If "X gets stolen a lot" is true, locking up X on the basis that X gets stolen a lot is reasonable.

It doesn't matter who is stealing X or for what motivation. There is no plausible case for this one, legal or ethical, unless Walmart is lying about the data. I doubt it in this case, locking stuff up is presumably at least somewhat more costly than not doing so if it's not being stolen (in manpower which they intentionally lack + potential lost sales due to inconvenience).

 

[Ryika]

You forget that I was around when you were telling everyone you were a mid-20s male, then a mid-20s female, and now a girl still in high school and underage. Since you've never made any indication that you're trans, I've taken to referring to you in a way that is respectful of your habit to change identities when the old one grows boring. Today you're a 15 year old girl, next year you'll probably be something else (and it won't be a 16 year old girl). I use "they" when I'm unsure of the person's gender, and that applies here.

I guess that's what you get when you create too much lore around your character, I should have stuck with staying annonomous. Fine, here's a rundown of the facts as they currently stand:

- I'm not 15, and I've clarified that a few times already, I think even directly in response to you iirc. I've only joked about being 15 on a few occasions after I realized that you can't actually change your age in these forums without contacting a (super) mod which I found to be pretty silly; but that's been like... 6 months ago now, and was always done in a joking manner that was supposed to make it clear that I'm not actually trying to seem like I'm 15. Hell, I even talked about how I got my current job in that other thread, surely not something I would do if I was trying to seem like I'm 15.
- I've never been a "mid-20s male", and I've no idea where you got that impression. Before I announced my gender in that one thread because people dismissed my dislike of current-day feminism as "hatred towards women" (which was back when the forums were way further down into radical left territory than they're these days) I was very careful to not give away any details about myself, because I didn't feel good about it. You've probably just assumed that I'm male by default, because most people here are, and that's it. Or maybe you've picked up one of the very, very few times where I didn't actually have a good way to get around talking about myself and simply lied, but that was like... maybe twice in the whole time I was active in these forums.
- I'm actually not "mid-20", I'm 22.
- And now that the thing about staying anonymous and not giving out extra information is gone anyway... my BF is 28 and, if you really need to know that too, I'm bi and think that artists are really good at drawing hot girls, but really bad at drawing hot boys, which is why I enjoy looking at lewd female artwork, but prefer looking at actual boys. Now please stop asking for all that extra information, it's getting creepy.

But I guess it's my own fault for confusing you, and I think I shouldn't have reacted to the pronoun in the first place. Not sure what I did, but I guess you can call me anything you like! He, She, They, Ze, all fine with me.

@topic:

I would have expected for opinions to be more divided.

I'd put a clever transition here if I had one, but I don't, so here's an article about Walmart and Theft that I found in the comment section of one of the articles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...-should-walmart-spend-to-cut-it/#3b024c6a7643

 

[dutchfire]

This is... somewhat funny to me, and a really interesting case. If we accept the premise that Walmart's decision is indeed based on statistical likelihood

Since no-one else has done so, let me be the first to say: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Inherent bias in algorithms is an increasingly important topic, see e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...ng-bias-of-facial-recognition-systems/476991/

 

[Disgustipated]

Baby formula is often locked up.

this really should be free...

 

[Farm Boy]

An understandable sentiment. Also 25 bucks a pop for a pretty small compact container. Both reasons for the locks, likely.