- After Anthropologie posted a Maya Angelou quote on Instagram, numerous people claiming to be current or former employees accused the brand of racial profiling customers and using the codename “Nick” to refer to Black people who go into their stores.
- A few days later, Anthropologie said it was supporting the Black community through measures like diversifying its workforce and donating $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund.
- That post also received backlash from users who called on the store to address the accusations levied against it.
- On Thursday, Anthropologie posted another statement, denying that it used a codeword and saying the company has a “zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination or racial profiling.”
Accusations Against Anthropologie
Anthropologie, the upscale clothing retailer owned by Urban Outfitters, is being accused of racially profiling customers after promoting inclusivity on social media.
The allegations first surfaced on June 1 when the brand posted a quote from Maya Angelou about diversity.
Numerous people who said they were either current or former employees at Anthropologie stores in multiple U.S. cities and Canada responded to the post, accusing the company of racial profiling and using the codename “Nick” to refer to Black customers.
View this post on Instagram
Maya Angelou’s words, more resonant than ever, are a call for equality and empathy. Our hearts, with yours, are breaking at current events, and now is the time for change. Community is the foundation on which our brand was built. Our priorities are improvement, respect, and education – now is the time to learn and grow.
Many of the responses were screenshotted and uploaded in a post by the fashion watchdog Diet Prada.
“How are you going to stop racially profiling your [Nicks]?” one user wrote. “I worked at Anthropologie and the racial profiling was sickening. So many times the management told us to watch people of color over the headsets.”
“I thought Chicago was the only ones who used ‘Nick” as a form of saying ‘watch that black woman who just walked in,’” another responded.
View this post on Instagram
Another day, another boho Karen retailer showing their true shades of beige. Last week, @anthropologie posted a Maya Angelou quote in splashy colors as a “call for equality”. With any mention of the #BlackLivesMatter movement absent, Angelou’s words could be interpreted more along the lines of “All lives matter”, lest Anthro offend their primary target audience. In the comment section, oblivious fans clamored for it to be released as a t-shirt or a poster. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Also in the comment section— claims of deep discriminatory practices. The code names different retailers have used to profile POC shoppers have come to light in lawsuits over the years—Moschino’s “Serena”, Zara’s “special order”, or Versace’s “D410” (the merchandise color code they use for black shirts)—but Anthropologie’s is maybe the most insidious yet. Comments from multiple employees confirm that stores in California, Chicago, Seattle, NYC and Canada use the code name “Nick” to refer to Black shoppers. Associates report being told to watch Black shoppers, and Black shoppers also commented confirming having been followed while shopping in their stores. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Anthropologie followed up with a post of a black square and then some promises of action they’ll take. At the same time, more hypocrisy was taking place at the corporate level. While the retailer was posting about committing to diversifying their workforce, they were at the same time asking POC for free labor. On May 26th, Queer Black creator Lydia Okello ( @styleisstyle ) was approached by a producer to potentially partake in Anthro’s #sliceofhappy Pride month campaign in exchange for a free outfit. ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Okello replied with their typical rates and ended up getting trapped in a back and forth volley with no resolution after being told there was no budget for an influencer of their level (22.8k followers). For a campaign aimed to express what happiness means, surely they could’ve anticipated that no one, especially in a month meant to celebrate them, is happy to work for free. • #blacklivesmatter #blm #anthropologie #anthropologiehome #anthro #retail #codename #work #free #influencer #microinfluencer #labor #dietprada
Other users also criticized the post as vague, empty, and failing to actually address the Black Lives Matter movement. Those remarks, along with calls for the affluent company to donate money, were also echoed in comments on a post made by the store the next day for “Blackout Tuesday.”
Several days later, Anthropologie responded with an Instagram post where it promised to stand with and support the Black community by diversifying its workforce, expanding its diversity and anti-discriminating training, and donating $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund.
The post did not mention the allegations of racial discrimination, which prompted more backlash and calls for the retailer to address the accusations.
View this post on Instagram
Here at Anthropologie, with our fellow URBN brands at our side, we support and stand with the Black community. We’ve been listening, learning, and reflecting on how we can improve diversity and combat racism. We’re committed to doing better – to being better – and it starts right now. Here are our promises to our community. These are only the first steps. Many more must follow.
Anthropologie’s Official Response
Anthropologie finally responded to the allegations on Thursday in another Instagram post.
“You may have seen that we have been challenged to be more transparent, unbiased, and fair in our stores and with our business practices,” the statement begins.
“Regarding allegations of racial profiling, we have never and will never have a code word based on a customer’s race or ethnicity,” it continued. “Our company has a zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination or racial profiling in any form. Employees who do not adhere to this policy are subject to disciplinary action which may include termination.”
View this post on Instagram
We support and stand with the Black community. You may have seen that we have been challenged to be more transparent, unbiased, and fair in our stores and with our business practices. We want to clearly lay out our policies regarding these matters and share them with you.
The statement also addressed accusations brought by a Black model and content creator named Lydia Okello, who posted screenshots of a conversation they had with an Anthropologie producer who had recruited them for a campaign celebrating Pride Month.
Okello said that when they provided their freelance rates, the producer said there was “no budget,” and that instead they would be given “one gifted look.”
“‘No Budget’ means that I was approached with no intent to ever be paid for my time and labour, let alone my experiences as a Black queer person,” Okello wrote.
“This happens to Black creatives constantly. Especially in the fashion industry,” they continued. “We are made to feel that we ask for too much when we bring up fair compensation for labour. It is implied that we should be happy with what we get. Shouldn’t we just be happy that a big brand wants to work with someone like us?”⠀
“But, in this case, it is quite confounding that a multimillion dollar company would reach out to someone with ‘no budget’. Especially when it involves the Queer Black Voices™️ it would like to align itself with, and use in advertisements.”
View this post on Instagram
On May 26th, I was contacted by a producer at @anthropologie to take part in a Pride campaign. I responded with my rates for the campaign requirements. The response was that there was no budget, but that the producer would be happy to email to discuss rates.⠀ ⠀ The email was a longer pitch, including a request for an advertisement on my Instagram page and 3-5 images for them to use wherever they would like. With no budget. ⠀ ⠀ The above are screenshots from our conversation, including a “nudge” in my DMs this week to respond to the email requests for free labour.⠀ ⠀ Throughout the interaction, I stated my price and was met with no compensation. “No Budget” means that I was approached with no intent to ever be paid for my time and labour, let alone my experiences as a Black queer person. Only after many messages/emails was there acknowledgement that I should be compensated. Even in that response, there was gaslighting. I stated my fees from the very first message.⠀ ⠀ This happens to Black creatives constantly. Especially in the fashion industry. We are made to feel that we ask for too much when we bring up fair compensation for labour. It is implied that we should be happy with what we get. Shouldn’t we just be happy that a big brand wants to work with someone like us?⠀ ⠀ I’ve been “paid” in exposure numerous times in the last 12 years as a style blogger. Which I now refuse to do. But, in this case, it is quite confounding that a multimillion dollar company would reach out to someone with “no budget”. Especially when it involves the Queer Black Voices™️ it would like to align itself with, and use in advertisements. Seems timely, no?⠀ ⠀ We need to hold brands accountable to their lip service. In fact, with BLM being a “hot topic” to a lot of corporations, this is going to happen FREQUENTLY. Folks will want to capitalize on Black bodies & Black labour for the lowest price possible, as they have for several hundred years. ⠀ ⠀ The final slide is a post from June 5 on the brand page. When Anthropologie says “black lives do matter” what does that mean? When they plan to diversify their workforce, is it this free Black labour?⠀ ⠀ #payblackcreatives #MyAnthropologie
Interestingly, Anthropologie appeared to validate Okello’s claim that they were told they would only be compensated in product, though it did not refer to them by name.
“In the case of influencers, our methods of compensation include product, financial payment, or a combination of both,” the company wrote.
Many users responded by condemning the post as defensive and generic, and some accused the retailer of lying.
“This is some straight BS, SAVE IT,” one user wrote. “You’re only posting this to save your company after people finally spoke out. I’m so over companies trying to make up for their LONG history of racial bias. You support and stand with things when it’s convenient for you!”
See what others are saying: (Business Insider) (The Daily Beast) (USA Today)
Meta Reinstates Trump on Facebook and Instagram
The company, which banned the former president two years ago for his role in inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, now says the risk to public safety has “sufficiently receded.”
Meta Ends Suspension
Meta announced Wednesday that it will reinstate the Facebook and Instagram accounts of former President Donald Trump, just two years after he was banned for using the platforms to incite a violent insurrection.
In a blog post, the company said the suspensions would be lifted “in the coming weeks” but with “new guardrails in place to deter repeat offenses.”
Specifically, Meta stated that due to Trump’s violations of its Community Standards, he will face “heightened penalties for repeat offenses” under new protocols for “public figures whose accounts are reinstated from suspensions related to civil unrest.”
“In the event that Mr. Trump posts further violating content, the content will be removed and he will be suspended for between one month and two years, depending on the severity of the violation,” the blog post continued.
The company also noted its updated protocols address content that doesn’t violate its Community Standards but “contributes to the sort of risk that materialized on January 6, such as content that delegitimizes an upcoming election or is related to QAnon.”
However, unlike direct violations, that content would have its distribution limited, but it would not be taken down. As a penalty for repeat offenses, Meta says it “may temporarily restrict access to […] advertising tools.”
As far as why the company is doing this, it explained that it assessed whether or not to extend the “unprecedented” two-year suspension it placed on Trump back in January of 2021 and determined that the risk to public safety had “sufficiently receded.”
Meta also argued that social media is “rooted in the belief that open debate and the free flow of ideas are important values” and it does not want to “get in the way of open, public and democratic debate.”
“The public should be able to hear what their politicians are saying — the good, the bad and the ugly — so that they can make informed choices at the ballot box,” the tech giant added.
Meta’s decision prompted widespread backlash from many people who argue the former president has clearly not learned from the past because he continues to share lies about the election, conspiracy theories, and other incendiary language on Truth Social.
“Trump incited an insurrection. And tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) tweeted. “He’s shown no remorse. No contrition. Giving him back access to a social media platform to spread his lies and demagoguery is dangerous. @facebook caved, giving him a platform to do more harm.”
According to estimates last month by the advocacy groups Accountable Tech and Media Matters for America, over 350 of Trump’s posts on the platform would have explicitly violated Facebook’s policies against QAnon content, election claims, and harassment of marginalized groups.
“Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to reinstate Trump’s accounts is a prime example of putting profits above people’s safety,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson told NPR.
“It’s quite astonishing that one can spew hatred, fuel conspiracies, and incite a violent insurrection at our nation’s Capitol building, and Mark Zuckerberg still believes that is not enough to remove someone from his platforms.”
However, on the other side, many conservatives and Trump supporters have cheered the move as a win for free speech.
Others, like Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Oh.) also asserted that Trump “shouldn’t have been banned in the first place. Can’t happen again.”
Trump himself echoed that point on in a post on Truth Social, where he claimed Facebook has lost billions of dollars both removing and reinstating him.
“Such a thing should never again happen to a sitting President, or anybody else who is not deserving of retribution! THANK YOU TO TRUTH SOCIAL FOR DOING SUCH AN INCREDIBLE JOB. YOUR GROWTH IS OUTSTANDING, AND FUTURE UNLIMITED!!!” he continued.
The question that remains, however, is whether Trump will actually go back to Facebook or Instagram. As many have noted, the two were never his main platforms. Twitter was always been his preferred outlet, and while Elon Musk reinstated his account some time ago, he has not been posting on the site.
There is also the question of how Truth Social — which Trump created and put millions of dollars into — would survive if he went back to Meta’s platforms. The company is already struggling financially, and as Axios notes, if Trump moves back, it signals to investors that he is not confident in the company.
On the other hand, Trump’s lawyers formally petitioned Meta to reinstate him, which could indicate that this goes beyond just a symbolic win and is something he actually wants. Additionally, if he were to start engaging on Facebook and Instagram again, it would immediately give him access to his over 57 million followers across the two platforms while he continues his 2024 presidential campaign.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (Axios) (The New York Times)
Meta Encouraged to Change Nudity Policy in Potential Win For Free The Nipple Movement
The company’s oversight board said Meta’s current rules are too confusing to follow, and new guidelines should be developed to “respect international human rights standards.”
Rules Based in “A Binary View of Gender”
In a move many have described as a big step for Free The Nipple advocates, Meta’s oversight board released a decision Tuesday encouraging the company to modify its nudity and sexual activity policies so that social media users are treated “without discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.”
The board—which consists of lawyers, journalists, and academics—said the parent company of Facebook and Instagram should change its guidelines “so that it is governed by clear criteria that respect international human rights standards.”
Its decision came after a transgender and nonbinary couple had two different posts removed for alleged violations of Meta’s Sexual Solicitation Community Standard. Both posts included images of the couple bare-chested with their nipples covered along with captions discussing transgender healthcare, as they were fundraising for one of them to undergo top surgery.
Both posts, one from 2021 and another from 2022, were taken down after users reported it and Meta’s own automated system flagged it. The posts were restored after an appeal, but the oversight board stated that their initial removal highlights faults in the company’s policies.
“Removing these posts is not in line with Meta’s Community Standards, values or human rights responsibilities,” the board said in its decision,
According to the board, Meta’s sexual solicitation policy is too broad and creates confusion for social media users. The board also said the policy is “based on a binary view of gender and a distinction between male and female bodies.
“Such an approach makes it unclear how the rules apply to intersex, non-binary and transgender people, and requires reviewers to make rapid and subjective assessments of sex and gender, which is not practical when moderating content at scale,” the decision continued.
Free the Nipple Movement
The board stated that the rules get especially confusing regarding female nipples, “particularly as they apply to transgender and non-binary people.”
While there are exceptions to Meta’s rules, including posts in medical or health contexts, the board said that these exceptions are “often convoluted and poorly defined.”
“The lack of clarity inherent in this policy creates uncertainty for users and reviewers, and makes it unworkable in practice,” the decision said.
The board’s recommended that Meta change how it manages nudity on its platforms. The group also requested that Meta provide more details regarding what content specifically violates its Sexual Solicitation Community Standard.
For over a decade, Meta’s nudity policies have been condemned by many activists and users for strictly censoring female bodies. The Free the Nipple movement was created to combat rules that prevent users from sharing images of a bare female chest, but still allow men to freely post topless photos of themselves.
Big names including Rihanna, Miley Cyrus, and Florence Pugh have advocated for Free the Nipple.
Meta now has 60 days to respond to the board’s recommendations. In a statement to the New York Post, a spokesperson for the company said Meta is “constantly evaluating our policies to help make our platforms safer for everyone.”
See What Others Are Saying: (Mashable) (The New York Post) (Oversight Committee Decision)
Amazon Labor Union Receives Official Union Certification
The company already plans to appeal the decision.
Amazon Labor Union’s Victory
The National Labor Relations Board on Wednesday certified the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) Staten Island election from April, despite Amazon’s objections.
After Staten Island staffers won the vote to unionize by 500 votes in the spring of 2022, Amazon quickly filed a slew of objections, claiming that the ALU had improperly influenced the election. Amazon pushed for the results to be overturned.
Now, the National Labor Relations Board has dismissed Amazon’s allegations and certified the election. This certification gives legitimacy to the ALU and puts Amazon in a position to be penalized should they decide not to bargain with the union in good faith.
“We’re demanding that Amazon now, after certification, meet and bargain with us,” ALU attorney Seth Goldstein said to Motherboard regarding the certification. “We’re demanding bargaining, and if we need to, we’re going to move to get a court order enforcing our bargaining rights. It’s outrageous that they’ve been violating federal labor while they continue to do so.”
Negotiate or Appeal
Amazon has until Jan. 25 to begin bargaining with the ALU, or the online retailer can appeal the decision by the same deadline. The company has already announced its plan to appeal.
“As we’ve said since the beginning, we don’t believe this election process was fair, legitimate, or representative of the majority of what our team wants,” Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel, said in a statement.
This win comes after two recent defeats in ALU’s unionization efforts. The union lost an election at a facility in Albany and another in Staten Island.
ALU’s director Chris Smalls told Yahoo! Finance that he is unconcerned about these losses.
“For us, whatever campaign is ready to go, the Amazon Labor Union is going to throw their support behind it, no matter what…We know that it’s going to take collective action for Amazon to come to the table,” he told the outlet. “So, for us, it’s never unsuccessful. These are growing pains, and we’re going to fight and continue to grow.”