The San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-SFBA) has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch on behalf of Hani Khan, who was fired for not removing her headscarf.
A similar complaint was filed against A&F by CAIR's Oklahoma chapter in 2008 on behalf of Samantha Elauf, who was not hired because of her headscarf.
Although CAIR is legally in the right, as far as I can tell, I intend to show that they are ethically in the wrong, and while they may win a victory for Hani, the inevitable result is that this action will harm our community. If Muslims in America wish to be a light of truth and virtue in this society we need to hold ourselves to a higher moral creed, not utilize an unethical system to coerce our neighbors.
I'll start by praising both of these women for sticking to their principles. I deeply respect and admire the integrity of women (and men) who adhere to their values in the face of oppositional pressure. I wish that their strength of character was the central theme of this story. I'd also like to ask them both if they hold the principle, as I do, that violence is not the way to solve our problems.
Let me explain what I'm talking about.
This complaint was filed with the EEOC because, as a federal agency, they are empowered to file a discrimination suit against A&F for wrongful termination. If Hani wins this discrimination suit the court will likely order A&F to rehire her, pay her lost wages, or in some other way retaliate against the company. Here's the question. Why would A&F comply with this order? What would happen if they refused? The unspoken fact is that if they don't, the government will make them comply, by force if necessary. The gun won't come out right away. They may levy fines, or revoke licenses, but if they refuse to pay those fines, if they continue to do business without a license, the last tool at the government's disposal is always violence. Wining a discrimination suit does not change hearts and minds. They comply because that subtle threat of violence permeates the entire transaction. So, I hope that these women ask themselves, as unjust and unethical as A&F's "look policy" seems to us, does threatening them with retaliatory violence, even through a proxy, conform with your principles? And I hope that the people at CAIR will ask themselves, is utilizing a coercive legal system to enforce your will on others the best way to, "encourage dialogue," or "build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding," as your mission statement says?
The fact is that using coercion against our neighbors is not only bad for our neighbors, it is bad for us. Most Muslims who are at all politically minded are familiar with the concept of "Blowback." US intervention in the a foreign country generates animosity toward America which explodes in unexpected ways. The same principle applies here on a smaller scale. Legal intervention in someone else's business model generates animosity toward Muslims which explodes in unexpected ways. Already, CAIR has announced they have received email threats from angry Americans.
Consider this. A&F has a history of legal issues surrounding their employment practices. In 2004 they were accused of discrimination against ethnic minorities for offering preferential treatment to whites, resulting in a class action law suit and a $45 million out-of-court settlement. Have they learned? In June 2009 they were accused of disability discrimination for hiding a one armed girl in the stock room and not allowing her on the sales floor, resulting in an employment tribunal and £8,013 compensation. In September 2009 they were accused of discriminating against the Muslim headscarf the first time, and now again. Why haven't they learned? Why is this "look policy" so important to them?
Is it just bigotry? Is it just a simple cost benefit analysis? I suppose there's no way to know for sure, but I'll tell you what I think. I think A&F chairman and CEO Michael Jeffries is a rich old eccentric who has spent the last 17 years using A&F to live out his own sexual fantasies, which incidentally involve white women, not brown women. He calls all his sales people "models" and has casting calls to put actual employees in their sexually explicit commercials. He says he thinks of A&F like a movie set, an emotional experience he wants to "sizzle with sex." I think Michael Jeffries understands better than anyone that a symbol of modesty doesn't belong in one of these soft-core bordellos. In his own words:
"We try to stay authentic and relevant to our target customer. I really don't care what anyone other than our target customer thinks."
A&F hasn't learned because you can never, ever create virtue with coercion. It's just not possible. And everyone, every Muslim, every American, every human needs to wake up to this fact. We have to find a mutually respectful way of resolving our disagreements.
So what can be done?
Interestingly, the ethical response to unethical business practices is already taking place, and that is market activism. In addition to the complaint CAIR put out an Action Alert requesting people contact A&F to express their concerns. News coverage is interviewing customers who express their outrage toward the company's discriminatory practices and threaten not to shop there anymore. People try to conflate these things together but the difference is that market activism is voluntary and rights respecting, while legal activism is coercive.
Consider this. A&F also has a history of market based controversy surrounding their more offensive merchandise and advertising. In 2002 A&F sold a shirt featuring a cartoon of Chinese immigrants and the slogan, "Wong Brother Laundry Service-Two Wongs Can Make it White." A boycott was organized by an Asian American student group at Stanford University and the company responded by discontinuing the shirt and apologizing. In 2003 their catalog contained nude photography, sexually explicit articles and recipes for alcoholic drinks, which were available to minors. There was an unprecedented wave of strong protest and organized boycotts over the publication, which was removed from stores and discontinued. In 2005 they sold a ladies shirt with the slogan, "Who needs brains when you have these?", and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette." The Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania organized a "girlcott" and the company pulled the shirts.
Why does market activism work? He said it himself, "I really don't care what anyone other than our target customer thinks." But, also because market activism actually reflects real public opinion. If you want to influence A&F's "look policy" you need to put down the gun and pick up the megaphone.
Here's what I suggest. Imagine if Hani Khan went public and said she was withdrawing her EEOC complaint on ethical grounds and that she didn't believe violence was the way to solver her problems. Immediately the strength of her character would take center stage. Can you imagine the unprecedented publicity and public support that would be generated by such a statement? Then, imagine if she admitted what we all know, that she was not fired because of her religion. She was fired because of her principled refusal to be made a sex object. And imagine if she used the attention to call for a boycott until the exploitative "look policy" was abolished. Imagine if CAIR contacted all the Christian organizations, women's rights activists and Asian American groups that A&F has crossed in the past to actually, "build a coalition to promote justice and mutual understanding." Reports out this month say that A&F's profits were down 31% last quarter from the recession. Now is not the time they want to be dealing with bad publicity. It might be more work, but at least this way we could maintain the moral high ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment