Connect with us

The Dictatorship

With Starbucks’ new bathroom policy, America has nowhere left to go

Published

on

With Starbucks’ new bathroom policy, America has nowhere left to go

It just got harder to find a bathroom in the United States.

Earlier this week, Starbucks announced the company would limit the use of its premises to paying customers only, with the stated goal of improving their stores’ atmospheres. “By setting clear expectations for behavior and uses of our spaces, we can create a better environment for everyone,” a company spokesperson told USA Today.

But that better atmosphere for Starbucks customers will come with a downside for all of us. If you need to use a bathroom when out and about — and all of us do at some point — life just got harder. As a result of the United States’ paucity of public bathrooms, Starbucks facilities had become de facto facilities for all. The story of its bathrooms demonstrates how we fail to invest in our civic infrastructure and instead privatize what are greater social issues and dilemmas — all of us, after all, need to use the bathroom — and the limits of that policy.

According to a study released in 2021, the United States has eight public toilets per 100,000 people.

Starbucks began its open-door policy in 2018 after a Black man who was meeting a business associate for coffee at a Starbucks was denied use of the location’s restroom. An argument between the staff and the men broke out, police were calledand a national scandal ensued. In an effort to quell the furor, the company declared all were welcome.

According to a study released in 2021, the United States has eight public toilets per 100,000 people. To put that number in context, Iceland has 56 and Switzerland 46. But even that nationwide ratio would be welcomed in our nation’s most populous cities. New York City and Los Angeles have four and five public toilets per every 100,000 residents, respectively. (Philadelphia, where that 2018 incident occurred, also has 4.)

“We expect our taxes to pay for street signs and streetlights and benches,” says Lezlie Lowe, author of No Place to Go: How Public Toilets Fail Our Private Needs. “But we’ve become used to going into a coffee shop and buying a muffin we don’t want to buy in order to access the bathroom.”

Until the 1970s, pay toilets in both public and private settings in the United States was more common.  It was understood that the nickel or dime fee would pay for keeping the facilities hygienic. But activists were aghast at the inequity.  Women were more often charged for stall use, while men could frequently use urinals free of charge. It was also a burden on the poor. Eventually, California banned their use (the legislation signed by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan), and the pay toilet fell into disfavor.

It was assumed states and cities would step in and build public facilities. But that never happened, at least in most places. It’s not dissimilar to what happened around the same time when the state residential mental health hospitals were shut down and were supposed to be replaced by community facilities that were never funded in adequate numbers.

The people needing to use the facilities aren’t just people out on a shopping trip. They are Uber drivers, Amazon drivers and those delivering food for apps.

Legislation is regularly introduced in the states and cities to address our public toilet needs, but it frequently languishes. True, there are popular TikToks and Reddit threads devoted to the topic, but who has time for that when in a hurry? Instead, people in need rush into businesses they believe might let them use their restrooms. These can be anything from restaurants to malls to grocery stores. The entire exercise is inherently humiliating. No one wants to beg a store clerk for permission to go to the bathroom, especially if they say no.

This puts a burden on embarrassed and in the extremes individuals, who are frequently left to guess whether the nearby fast-food joint will easily let them into their bathroom or insist they purchase a side of fries or a latte first. And the system is inherently inequitable. It is easier, to use a very personal example, for a middle-aged woman dressed in work clothes to gain access to a midtown Manhattan lobby hotel bathroom (and to possess the cultural knowledge to know it is there and open to the public) than it is for a homeless man, for whom it is all but impossible. And as that Philadelphia incident showed, race matters here, as well.

And the people needing to use the facilities aren’t just people out on a shopping trip. They are Uber drivers, Amazon drivers and those delivering food for apps. They are left to resort to carrying “pee bottles” in their vehicles or begging their customers for a favor.

Toilet access is vital for a full public life. That’s why Starbucks’ open-door policy answered a pressing need. It was, as Laura Norén, co-editor of Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharingtold me, “the [highway] rest stop for urban warriors.” The company’s stores are widely viewed as a so-called “third space,” a place outside of home or work where people can gather and socialize. But Starbucks was always, in reality, a private business where access can be yanked at any time. And that’s exactly what happened.

The best outcome here would be if Starbucks’ decision led more cities and states to commit to building more public bathrooms. It can happen. Portland, Oregon — which manufactures and promotes the Portland Looa stand-alone, self-cleaning bathroom — has 17 public toilets per 100,000 residents. More cities and states should follow its lead. The worst outcome would be to flush this opportunity for change down the toilet.

Helaine I am

Helaine Olen is a managing editor at the American Economic Liberties Project and a reporter in residence at the Omidyar Network. She is the author of “Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry” and a co-author of “The Index Card: Why Personal Finance Doesn’t Have to Be Complicated.” She has been a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, and her work has also appeared in numerous other publications, including The New York Times and The Atlantic.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Trump’s next Smithsonian target: A future women’s history museum

Published

on

Trump’s next Smithsonian target: A future women’s history museum

President Donald Trump has sought to remake Smithsonian institutions in his image during his term in office.

Now, House Republicans are setting their sights on another museum Trump has targeted — and it’s one that is still years away from being built.

This week, a group of House Republicans used a committee vote on a bill intended to establish a location for the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum to pass an amendment stipulating that the museum must not include transgender women in its exhibitions or content.

“The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,” the new amendment states, in a section called “scope of mission.”

“The Museum may not identify, present, describe, or otherwise depict any biological male as a female,” it continues.

Sponsored by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., — who Trump has endorsed for re-election — the amendment furthers an executive order the president signed last Marchin which he demanded the forthcoming museum “not recognize men as women in any respect.”

“The accomplishments of real women should never be overshadowed by biological men pretending to be women,” Miller said Wednesday at the committee markup of the bill.

The proposal comes as the latest effort from Trump and his allies to erase trans people from public life. It’s also their latest attempt to exert greater control over the Smithsonian, an independent, public-private partnership established by Congress and overseen by a Board of Regents that includes the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the vice president.

If passed, Miller’s amendment would also give Trump the final say on the museum’s location if he doesn’t approve of the one proposed by the Smithsonian and Congress, which is the lot across from the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said he was “extremely disappointed” that Miller and Republicans had “needlessly politicized” what has otherwise been a bipartisan process to kowtow to Trump, whom the Democrat said is trying to “regulate” and “whitewash” history.

The amendment ultimately passed the committee 7 to 4 along party lines.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the bill amended by Miller, said she was “pleased” to see it pass out of committee but disappointed that Democrats opposed it.

It will now head to a floor vote, where it is likely to pass under the Republican majority. Spokespeople for Miller; House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.; and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., did not respond to MS NOW’s questions, including when it could come up for a floor vote.

Congress authorized the building of both the women’s history museum and another museum dedicated to American Latinos in 2020. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., introduced a separate bill last year allocating a location for the Latino museum, which has yet to make it out of committee. In an interview with NBC News earlier this year, Malliotakis blamed Johnson for the holdup on the passage of the bill, which she introduced in February of last year.

She also said she hoped to pass the bill — which has more than 230 bipartisan cosponsors — during Women’s History Month in March.

While the Smithsonian originally offered a decade-long timeline for the museums openings, the process has been slower-moving over the past six years. A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told MS NOW there is currently no planned opening date and the institution does not comment on pending legislation in Congress.

Democrats may have little power to stop the amendment, but they are not staying quiet about it.

Members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus called the amendment a “poison pill” that would give the president undue power over site.

“A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man,” the group’s leaders said.

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, pointed out that the original bill that authorized the museum’s creation in 2020 did not address the specific content of its programming, other than requiring it to portray “the diverse range of experiences and viewpoints of all women” in the U.S. However, Takano also noted, “the Museum should highlight the experiences of all women, including transgender women.”

The Smithsonian spokesperson said it’s “too early for us to discuss exhibitions in a museum that hasn’t been built yet.”

If the bill passes with the anti-trans amendment, the Smithsonian would likely have leeway on how to interpret it, or whether to follow it, given that the institution has insisted on its independence even in the face of Trump’s threats. However, Congress controls the majority of its funding and could threaten to withhold money if officials wanted to force the museum to comply.

A source with knowledge of the planning process for the museum also told MS NOW that they believe Smithsonian leadership is “concerned about blowback and escalation” given recent events.

In last year’s executive orderTrump alleged the Smithsonian had “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and demanded Vice President JD Vance take a greater role in overseeing funding for the institute’s programming. As part of a subsequent content review, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit before restoring them days later following a public outcry. In December, the White House also issued a letter to Smithsonian leadership demanding extensive documentation on planned programming and threatening to withhold federal funds if those demands were not fulfilled.

“I think the museum leadership sees our historical moment as one of existential crisis for the Smithsonian,” the source familiar with the planning told MS NOW. “And their deepest commitment is to the survival of the institution.”

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary

Published

on

Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary

The Trump administration’s plans to celebrate the country’s upcoming 250th anniversary are shaping up to be an exhibition of Christian nationalist extremism.

The president — who has been found liable for fraud and sexual abuse and who has upset some in his own movement with his suggestion that he isn’t bound for heaven — has eagerly wrapped himself in Scripture and packed his administration with religious zealots who wish to erode the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

And a new report from The New York Times spotlights the cadre of right-wing evangelicals who joined an event last month to plan a slate of explicitly Christian-centered programming in the lead-up to the 250th anniversary celebrations. One of the people in attendance was Eric Metaxas, the far-right media figure and promoter of election conspiracy theories who has touted his belief that Christians should “infiltrate” government.

What we know of the programming thus far suggests it will serve to reinforce the view that the country’s laws and customs have always been, and must be, rooted in Christianity — or at least the conservative movement’s interpretation of its teachings.

The Times’ report spotlighted an event called “Rededicate 250,” which is scheduled for May 17. The White House says it will feature a “large-scale revival” on the National Mall.

One of the people apparently helping plan the programming is a self-described Christian nationalist named Sean Feucht, who has portrayed himself as an informal adviser of sorts to Trump officials. He has been a fixture alongside Scott Turner, secretary of Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Last year, Feucht said he had been tapped to give “divine perspective” on California’s wildfire recovery effortsand he joined Turner on a tour of damaged sites. At the time, a HUD spokesperson told MS NOW that Feucht wasn’t saying he had an “official role” — though he very well may have had an unofficial role. Feucht also performed onstage at a Christian worship session hosted by HUD on the National Mall last September — an event quite similar to the one set for May.

Feucht was specifically named by Rep. Jared Huffman last month, in a news release the California Democrat sent out rebuking the “whitewashing” and “corruption” surrounding the 250th anniversary events. Huffman cited Feucht’s claims of having collaborated with Trump officials on “revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government,” as part of what the congressman called “Christian nationalism on the taxpayer dime.”

“The Trump administration is using this celebration to further erode church-state separation and force extreme Christian Nationalism on the American people,” the news release said, “pushing a false narrative that our country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump v. Roberts: The president crashes out online while the chief stays the course

Published

on

Trump v. Roberts: The president crashes out online while the chief stays the course

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers.The Supreme Court added to the term’s already heavy docket, agreeing on Monday to considerthe Trump administration’s quest to quickly end humanitarian protections for Haitians and Syrians.

Yet the week’s court news arguably started Sunday night, when President Donald Trump lashed out on social media. He complained in lengthy postsabout the tariffs ruling (which he mischaracterized) and other gripes, including the 2020 election loss that still haunts him and his disappointment in the court’s Republican appointees.

He referred to the “Democrats” and “Republicans” on the courtforgoing the more precise, if euphemistic, label of Democratic and Republicanappointees. The president groused on Truth Social that GOP justices “openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land.”

By “openly disrespect,” he apparently meant some of the Republican appointees occasionally rule against him. At the risk of stating the obvious, the court has been helpful to Trump, both personally and presidentially.

But it’s not the Trump Court. It’s the Roberts Court. And though there’s overlap between the two, Chief Justice John Robertsis playing a longer game. That means the court occasionally checks the Republican president, even while largely approving his policies and keeping him out of prison.

Roberts didn’t directly respond to Trump’s latest meltdown. But he happened to have a public appearance on Tuesday, at which he put yet more distance between himself and the president. While in conversation with a federal judge at Rice University in Houston, the chief justice called personal attacks on judges “dangerous,”and he deemed “absurd”the notion that justices carry forward the agenda of the presidents who appointed them.

Again, he didn’t call out Trump by name.But one needn’t squint to see the application to the president’s tariffs crash-out, which has featured calling justices who ruled against him traitors and embarrassments to their families.

Still, Roberts can’t escape Trump, who has continued to dominate the high court’s docket,even when the litigation doesn’t directly involve him. Take Steve Bannonwhose appeal the justices considered at their private conference on Friday. The Justice Department is supporting the Trump ally’s bidto upend his contempt conviction, and we may learn as soon as Monday morning whether the justices are prepared to bless that partnership.

After the court issues its order list at 9:30 a.m. ET on Monday, which could have news on Bannon’s petition and many others, the court will kick off its March argument sittingwith a hearing in Watson v. RNC. The court’s latest foray into election litigation ahead of the midterms concerns timing rules for casting ballots. Solicitor General D. John Sauer is set to appearin support of the Republican National Committee, which wants to block mail ballotsreceived after Election Day, even if they’re sent by then.

Have any questions or comments for me? Pleasesubmit them through this formfor a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending