Connect with us

U.S.

Walmart, CVS, and Walgreens to Stop Locking Up Black Beauty Products

Published

on

  • Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS have all announced they will stop locking up multicultural beauty products. 
  • The moves come amid criticism that the companies were engaging in a form of institutionalized racism by locking up Black beauty products but not their mainstream counterparts, implying that Black people are more likely to steal.
  • While this criticism is nothing new, it gained traction this week after KCNC-TV in Denver reported on a woman who had criticized the practice on social media. 

Companies Unlock Black Beauty Products From Behind Glass

Major retail chains like Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS now say they will stop locking beauty products aimed at people of color behind glass cases.

The move is the latest in a series of sweeping changes that have happened this week alone. TV shows like “Cops” and “Live PD” were canceled, the film “Gone with the Wind” was temporarily pulled from HBO Max, confederate monuments are being removed or defaced at a rapid pace, and confederate flags were banned from being displayed by the Marine Corps and NASCAR

All of those changes largely come in the wake of the death of George Floyd, as well as those of Breonna Taylor and Ahamud Arbery. Among massive calls for reform to law enforcement, protests over these deaths have also sparked conversations on other racist aspects of American culture.

It’s not uncommon for retailers to lock up products they say have higher theft rates (video games, tools, razor blades, etc). Beauty products aimed at people of color, however, tend to be among those products that find themselves behind a glass barrier, even if their generic counterparts aren’t.

Many times, those products are also locked up in neighborhoods that are predominantly Black, and stores have faced criticism for locking up more items in Black neighborhoods compared to those in predominantly white neighborhoods.

“If you lock up products for Black people and you aren’t doing that for products for white customers, that is discriminatory,” Neil Saunders, managing director at GlobalData Retail, told The Associated Press. “It is out of step with the times we are living now.”

On Wednesday, Walmart—the largest grocery retailer in the United States—said it would ban locking up multicultural beauty products.

“We’re sensitive to the issue and understand the concerns raised by our customers and members of the community and have made the decision to discontinue placing multicultural hair care and beauty products—a practice in place in about a dozen of our 4,700 stores nationwide—in locked cases,” the company said in a statement.

“As a retailer serving millions of customers every day from diverse backgrounds, Walmart does not tolerate discrimination of any kind.”

The move comes after KCNC-TV in Denver reported that Walmart was locking up Black beauty products at a location in the city.

Notably, Walmart was sued for discrimination over the practice in 2018. That lawsuit, which claimed that Walmart was implying Black people are more likely to steal, was dropped last year.

Following Walmart’s announcement, both Walgreens and CVS followed suit.

“We are currently ensuring multicultural hair care and beauty products are not stored behind locked cases at any of our stores,” Walgreens said in a statement on Thursday.

“We have a firm nondiscrimination policy that applies to all aspects of our business and our product protection measures have never been based on the race or ethnicity of our customers,” CVS said in a statement on Thursday. 

“After reviewing the security measures we have in place for many different products and categories, we are taking steps in our stores to ensure that no hair, beauty or personal care products for communities of color are kept in locked displays or shelving units,” it added.

CVS went on to note that the company has grown its “textured hair and color categories” by 35% recently. It said it has also added new items and brands targeted towards communities of color. 

Customers Criticize the Practice as Racist

KCNC-TV reported on Walmart locking up Black beauty products after a customer complained of the practice on social media. 

“White privilege also extends to hair care products apparently in Walmart,” that customer, Lauren Epps, says in the video.

“But apparently, the multicultural hair care is all locked behind the glass cause I bet you think we’re just going to run up in here and steal it. That’s so ridiculous.”

Epps later told KCNC-TV that this is just another form of implicit bias people of color face daily. She also said the practice is personally frustrating because it makes it difficult for her to browse and read product descriptions.

In another practice that is not uncommon, Epps said once she selected a product, an sales associate then took it out of the case and put it in another locked case, this one portable. From there, Epps said she left without buying the product.

Epps also criticized Walmart for saying it locks up more expensive products that are prone to higher rates of theft, especially since she said she found more expensive, mainstream hair care products not behind glass.

“They could say these are the most shoplifted items, but you can’t convince me that every single item in there is on their radar,” Epps said. 

Epps is not alone in her criticism. Kendra Bracken-Ferguson, a Black digital marketing leader, said she finds it annoying to have to wait for employees to unlock beauty products at certain locations only to find them not locked up in predominantly white neighborhoods. In fact, she said she’s stopped going to stores with such practices in place.

“It sends a message of being prosecuted as soon as you walk in, disrespected and generalized in a way that is psychological troubling because it is based on the race of your skin or where you live and nothing more,” she told the AP.

See what others are saying: (MarketWatch) (The New York Times) (CNN Business)

U.S.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases

Published

on

The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.


SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.

The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.

On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. 

However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.

In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.

As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.

An Ongoing Debate

Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.

In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.

The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls. 

Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.

While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.

At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days

Published

on

The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.


Centner Academy Vaccination Policy

A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.

According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.

“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.

“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.

According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”

In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.

Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.

Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation

In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”

“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.

The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.

In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.

According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.

See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem

Published

on

Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.


Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg

In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism. 

Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.

“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.

Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice

“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.

According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject. 

Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out. 

Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.

See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)

Continue Reading