What are you implying? That you can appear to engage in the same acts others are accused of as long as you're not caught?



Ok, by that statement, companies like the ones listed should be expecting a lawsuit soon...

Maxim, FHM, and Stuff Magazines
Hooter's Restaurant
Hawaiian Tropic Sun Tan Lotion
Budweiser, Coors, Michelob (almost any company that makes alcoholic beverages
and uses beautiful models to advertise them)
The NHL, NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball

And as much as people might object to not seeing the same girls they're used to seeing at Hooter's, it would surely be fair. But we all know there's a better chance of the Dalai Lama being elected president of the National Rifle Association than Hooter's hiring women other than they've been known to hire.

So what it comes down to is all or none. Either investigate companies like these, or none of them, as far as discriminatory hiring to push a a certain "look".

Now if A/F is guilty (which the settlement never impled on the company) of racist hiring practices, then they are wrong and should be dealt with accordingly.

But we can't definitively prove that for either A&F or FUBU. We have heresay from former employees and no hiring records from FUBU. I've stayed away from that part of the suit, but everyone else seems to focus on it.

What I'm focusing on is the part of the suit that says Abercrombie & Fitch...

cultivates a virtually all-white image in its catalogues and elsewhere.

All I am asking is if it is fair that A&F be sued for that, when it is appears that FUBU is engaging in the same practice?



Ok... lets disect this...

We have a company created with the intent to create designer clothes for African-Americans, by African-Americans, ultimately presenting an all black image. A company who's own name reflects a (sic) "positive statement of black empowerment." A company who never thought of marketing clothing to anyone else because they thought "only inner-city kids were into Timberland" and that a racially exclusionary image was not intended.

Now I'm not saying the folks at FUBU are racist, but the entire concept behind their company appears to be singling out a specific image, created by those of a specific persuasion. The intent is implicit and obvious and should be reviwed using the logic of the EEOC.

Now do I personally care if that's the image they want to push? No. If people want to advertise and sell to a specific consumer targer, by all means, go do it. But if people are going to be sued over image, then it shouldn't be against any one company.

But as I said, since that'll never happen, they should focus on the actuall wrongdoing. If A&F is guilty, I'm sure they'll be thinking twice about such practices and if FUBU is guilty (and appears to be so of at least one of the allegations levied against A&F) then they should be scrutinized as well.

Titus- what we have here is some pretty convincing evidence of illegal discrimination at A/F while we are supposing that the same thing is happening at FUBU. Since whites have not filed a complaint or lawsuit against FUBU- we have nothing but a hypothetical argument. NOW- I am not for discrimination based on race for any reason- but to me, the whole argument, at this point, is the hypothetical supposition that FUBU is doing the same thing as A/F when there is no real evidence to suggest this- and even more importantly, no legal complaint.

Really? So, for example, in the selection process for the lead role in a movie about Malcolm X...should they pick an actor with absolutely no regard to his race? Would they have an Asian looking Malcolm? Should they?

Good point Mrs P- hadn't thought of that- and I guess we won't be upset if a black man plays Jesus as well LOL- perhaps I should have been more concise- let me see if I can nail this down - I think that discrimination is bad in any case that a race is not an issue for the ability to do the job? A little closer? KInd of like it is neccesary to hire a woman to be a surrogate mother- it is not possible for the man to do the job convincingly, no?

I think it is pretty obvious though that A/F went out of thier way to fire non-white poeple- or at the very least, there was enough merit in that accusation for them to settle for a VERY large chunk of money. If it had been relative chump change, perhaps I would think different- but what was it? 40 million? That is CEO money!

Whereas there is no such smoking gun to the FUBU example being put forth here- but if there was reverse discrimination- well, then FUBU should have to face the music as well.

I agree. This is the line where I believe the difference lies...when race, or sex, or whatever, is fundamental to the overall job description or marketing strategy (the only time I can see this would be a factor is entertainment or sales promotion). It is pretty clear in the case of something like the part of Malcolm X, but it becomes less clear on the promotional end. I personally don't see much difference between hiring only Swiss-looking blonde girls to spoon out Swiss-miss cocoa for a promotional campaign or hiring a person to play a part in a movie. It's their business model. In the case of A&F, since they actually fired a person they had hired (based on race), that probably crosses the line.

At any rate, I think it's smart for a business to not eliminate from their marketshare any segment of the population, which has a large voice and can boycott the product. I DO think they should reserve the right to hire the staff they want on the promotional end, though...in fact, after reading about FUBU, I thought I'd investigate, and I like their shoes! I think I'll order a pair from them today (free shipping at shoes.com ).

Uh, did you look at the FUBU website? That's some pretty convincing evidence as far as cultivating an all-black image. You know, the same thing A&F was accused of, just switch the word black with white. If that's not evidence, I don't know what to say.

I personally was thinking of contacting someone at FUBU and ask them about their hiring practices and the racial makeup of their workforce, but I don't think I'd get an answer. I might just email them later today and see what response I get.

Dont you think youre focusing on the wrong thing? While that is one of charges brought up against A&F, the trial seems to be more about hiring practices than A&F's advertising. But youve said virtually nothing about that, except to harp on FUBU for possibly engaging in these same practices. Most of us seem to agree that A&F can have a bunch of blonde kids in their ads and catalogues, but are appalled to hear that A&F has fired minorities that dont "fit the [all-american] image". Isnt that really what the trial was about? Breaking the law when it comes to hiring store personnel based on race, and not on merit?

I think Kimpossible and NT have nailed it- the real issue is the hiring and firing practices- NOT thier customer base. The customer base is simply a side issue.

Nighttimer, I don't know if you even bothered to read your own quotes, or the details of the suit provided in the initial article, but part of the suit was about image.

I've said over and over that since I can't prove FUBU discrimantes against potential employees based on race (via records of hiring practices or the racial diversity of their employees) I won't argue on that point until such proof becomes availlable.

What's appalling is your willingness to turn a blind eye to what's in front of you. As far as image is concerned, and as the snopes link you provided confirmed, teh intent of FUBU was to create clothing, designed and intended for young black men. I mean for crying out loud... look at the online catalogue... would you say that it presents a virtually all-black image?

It's crystal clear that's what the case is simply by looking at the site. As far as hiring is concerned, for the last time, I haven't and will continue to not argue from that point until proof arises.

Kimpossible, I have said more than "virtually nothing" on the issue of hiring practices. I have said that if A&F is guilty of such actions that they will think twice about continuing said practices and that since I don't have any record of FUBU's hiring records or statistics on the makeup of their employees by race, I can't argue against them.

I have only focused on the aspects of this debate that can be debated. You have to be blind not to see the hypocracy here. What's so hard?



And somehow this suit has only to do with hiring practices?

I'm curious to what the reaction would be if it was FUBU who was sued.

However Titus- the money was paid out, not because of thier promotions of the cloting line, but discrimination of employees

" Abercrombie & Fitch Co. has agreed to pay $40 million to black, Hispanic and Asian employees and job applicants to settle a class-action federal discrimination lawsuit that accused the clothing retailer of promoting whites at the expense of minorities, lawyers said Tuesday...."

So one is THE issue, the other is a side issue. Now, if the side issue would stand up in court is anybodies guess at this point- but one thing THAT WILL stand up in court is discrminitory hiring practises, regardless of who the company is.

How do you know why the money was paid out? The settlement never in any way levied any guilt on A&F. All we have are some allegations that warranted investigation. No court order. No verdict of guilt.

This is true Titus- we don't know- and that is the crux of this whole debate- alot of hypotheticals here- basically some kind of manufactured backlash over a discrimination suit.

The 40 million price tag is quite high however, and if there was no merit to the case, I would GUESS that the number would be much lower- don't you think?

in terms of selecting models, i think that AF should do as they wish. unless they receive federal funding, i dont see how they would have to comply with federal hiring guidelines. it may not be good for public relations but is it illegal? i admit i dont know too much on this area so if anyone else does please help me out.

But there isnt really anything to debate, because the reason there was a case against A&F was because of hiring practices and not the white people in their catalogues. The article you provide states as much, in the first two paragraphs.



Emphasis mine. They arent being asked to change their advertising, but comply with anti-discrimination law. That is the main reason for the settlement: the complaints about unfair work practices. I dont know how youre trying to argue otherwise. Throughout the article the first thing that is mentioned is A&Fs hiring practices, and then secondly its marketing. I take that to mean that people are more concerned with the A&F hiring practices than their ads. There have been a few people in this thread that have already stated (myself included), A&F can have a bunch of white kids in their ads, but its wrong for A&F to



Again, I think youre focusing on the wrong issue about the A&F case, but IF A&F were only brought to trial for the fact they use white people in their advertising, yes I think thats wrong. But that isnt what this trial was about, its about people of color being fired because they weren't white, or hired only in positions where customers cant see them.



Well it would depend on what they were being sued for, but lets step into reality, they arent being sued. You seem to think that FUBU must be as bad as A&F (hey if a white company's doing it, of course there is a black equivalent, or worse!) but the fact is, no one has been offended enough by FUBU to bring a court case against them. If FUBU's apparent wrong doing is that bad, dont think people would do something about it? And, if you feel that a company like FUBU should be sued over its "all black image" simply because it happened to be a side issue in the A&F case, no one is stopping you. What Im trying to say (and what I assume others arguing against you are trying to say) is that there is no reason FUBU should even brought into this debate, it seems to me like an attempt to demonize a black company when there is no evidence against any wrong doing on them, and to absolve a white company from some serious racist allegations.