So, can anyone verify that A&F is targeted to white people? I’ve got a ton of their stuff and would hate to think I’m making a fashion faux pas and that white people are laughing at me behind my back.
A&F is probably “targetted” to whites the same way Fubu is targetted to blacks… they design and market products typically associated with certain population groups.
All the models I saw on the Abercrombie website are white, all the models I saw on Fubu are black. I wouldn’t assume that an A&F (Fubu) ad featuring white (black) people only is saying, “We want you to shop here only if you look like this,” but rather “Hey, if you identify with this image, we have clothes for you.” The people who identify with the image may or may not be the same color as the person featured in the ad.
Most likely because the models in the ads are not employees of the media publication. The publication sells ad space to another company, who most likely hire an ad agency to create the ad, and the ad agency might even hire another company to do the photography, who the actual model contracts with.
-fh
Not illegal discrimination, and not comparable to A&F.
-
Ebony and Jet don’t hire the models pictured in the ads in those magazines; they have nothing to do with the models - they simply sell space to advertisers. So Ebony and Jet have not engaged in employment discrimination.
-
Likewise, the advertisers have no employment relationship with the models. They hire a modeling/ad agency to provide the models for the ads. So no discrimination by them.
-
As for the actual employers, the question would be whether they only hire black models, or whether they are equal opportunity. If they don’t hire non-blacks, they are engaging in illegal discrimination.
-
However, if they offer to hire non-blacks, but tell them, “listen, most/all of our jobs are providing models for Ebony and Jet ads. Those ads mostly use black models, so you aren’t going to get much work. Still want the job?,” there would be no illegal discrimination.
Sua
El Mariachi Loco:
Heh, you realize what FUBU means, don’t you? It’s an acronym for “for us (black people) by us (black people)”. So basically, they are saying “shop here only if you look like this” (no one listens, though, since it seems that more white people wear it than blacks).
In the UK you are allowed to discriminate ethnically in restaurants, which is why you get served by Chinese in Chinese restaurants, Thais in Thai restaurants, etc.
I’m just waiting for someone to open an English restaurant. I’ve no doubt that the Commission for Racial Equality will prosecute them and this will get thrown in their faces.
I’m not at all sure, but I heard that it was “Fo’ You, By You,” which stuck to my brain because it makes little sense.
**
Move to Utah.
. **
[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, I’ve found a few Chinese restaurants in Tokyo with non-Asian staff. Cooks, in fact.
This is just one of those laws that are incredibly hard to find a happy medium to. IMHO, there are certain instances where you can’t just apply a formula - a hard law - to it, you just have to use your judgment whether or not it’s unfair. On one extreme, we can have an affirmative action-like law where every store must hire a certain ratio of ethnicity, at the expense of good business. On the other extreme, it is possible to get to the point where no white businessmen will hire ethnic groups at all.
I think this is more a problem of society than a problem with a law. The law is trying to fix society, but there’s no cut and dry way to do this - which is why we need a Judge. Someone who uses their judgment whether or not something is wrong.
Unfortunately, there will always be corruption, and this is a problem that’s not easily solved.
I’ve seen quite a few non-Asian employees at Asian restaurants in areas without a large Asian population, such as rural Pennsylvania. In spite of that, many Asian restaurants are small, family-owned businesses, and most or all of the employees will be relatives of the owner, not hired from a ad or sign.
Hm, could I work the word “Asian” in there a few more times?
hazel-rah & SuaSponte:
I don’t think it makes a difference who the employer is. (Though I agree that the magazines have nothing to do with the issue). My understanding is that the modeling agencies are like employment agencies, and that the models are hired by the ad agencies on a case by case basis, which would make the ad agencies the employers who are only hiring Blacks. But even if they’re not, it would then be analogous to a general contractor hiring subcontractors. Suppose a building general contractor hires an assortment of subcontractors, plumbers, masons, carpenters etc. Suppose he tells all the subcontractors that only Black laborers can be hired to work on this project. Does this pass muster? I don’t think so. Same case as the models.
No, the relevant distinction has nothing to do with who the employer is, but has to do with whether it is outright discrimination (“we don’t want any Whites around here”) or genuine need (in the case of the Black models). And on this basis, the A&F clerks would seem to fall on the side of the models.
The only distinction that you could make is that the primary purpose of the models is to influence people to buy the stuff. By contrast, the primary purpose of store clerks is generally not to project an image. I can imagine that some court might decide to make this distinction. (I think it might already exist in case law, between the airline flight attendant ruling and the Hooters waitress case). But I don’t think it holds up. A&F has an innovative business plan under which store clerks serve two roles. Both are legitimate.
As for the Asian restaurant issue, I would guess that most of these positions are filled by word of mouth, and naturally get filled by Asians.
IANAL, first of all, but I know that there’s discrimination and there’s illegal discrimination. Fat, ugly, short, bald, stupid – none of those type of shortcomings are protected under law.
I tend to agree, though, that if there’s any type of statement where this clothing store wants only to hire whites, there’s a legit lawsuit there. I don’t think it’s legal, nor fair, nor moral, to start any business that wants to exclude certain races. No matter what your excuse.
You can sell image, as long as you’re not being racist in the process.
I wonder – can you discrimate based on race-linked physical characteristics? For example, could a store hire only people with blond hair, or only people with epicanthic folds? I get the impression they could hire only people with big biceps, or only people taller than 5’10", right?
How, in other words, is race defined for the purpose of anti-discrimination laws? (I’m not trying to be a smartass, really; I’m just curious about the laws’ nuts and bolts)
Daniel
I remember this school play about Hitler. Basically, they had a black (aboriginal) woman wearing a Jewish cap playing Hitler while pretending to be mute.
At the end of the play the black/overwight/jewish/mute/female Hitler wrote on a giant placard that “This play does not discriminate against any race, gender, culture, or religion. However, we had to sacrifice one or two irrevelant details in order to keep in line with our politically correct attitude. But don’t worry, its still education, in another way.”
The play was pretty much making fun of today’s “politically correct” society. Pretty funny, especially when most of the “Nazi soldiers” were either Asian or Indian! They even had a Middle Eastern kid playing as Heindrich and a Japanese kid as Georing.
Yes, that’s why I chose it to illustrate. The clothing line was founded by black entrepreneurs, with black consumers in mind. Yet their marketing to the “black community” has residual effects on white, Asian, Hispanic etc. individuals who like that style. It doesn’t mean that they’re trying to act black (or contrarily, that JuanitaTech is trying to act white), just that they respectively happen to like clothing designed with a certain other demographic in mind. And the company doesn’t mind that it’s become a crossover brand of sorts.
This Snopes link describes some of the considerations in the company’s development.
Sinful:
Well what were they supposed to do, bar certain students from perfoming in it? It’s just a school play. White actors play outside their race all the time. What’s the big deal about an Indian or Asian student playing a Nazi soldier on stage? Can’t an all-black company be allowed perfom a Shakespeare play set in Denmark? Your little play’s “point” was pointless. It’s not that funny either (as in tired and corny, not offensive).
Jews and British actors play Hitler all the time, some seriously, others with sweeping ribald humor.
Black Jesus—ooh, scared you?