SEATTLE, WA — Starbucks announced in a press release this past week that all 8,000+ of their stores will be closing on May 29 for a mandatory training on racial bias. All employees, according to Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson, will have to undergo the training, but there’s an interesting loophole in that: Black employees don’t have to go because they’re incapable of being racist or racially biased.

According to a Starbucks spokesperson, black employees will not need to go to the training because “[they] know enough about racial bias,” while all white employees will be required to attend. Hispanic employees are also required to take the training because of rampant use of the n-word within the community, which, according to Johnson, “must be a sign of something wrong in their education about race. I can’t make that call for sure, but we’ll have them there just in case.”

Many black activists call this a step in the right direction, but even more are concerned that they have squandered their opportunity to get free coffee out of this situation.

Victoria Davis, a black lady we consult with when we write racial articles, tells us she’d “rather just get a Venti Caramel Macchiato with an extra shot of espresso and two pumps of vanilla then racial bias training.” She went on to express her frustration, saying that she believes when the two who were arrested in Philadelphia had a chance to meet with the CEO, they dropped the ball by just talking about their experience being arrested while not asking for free stuff in return.

“Exhibit A that niggas ain’t shit. Those two goofy ass muthafuckas sat down with the CEO of Starbucks and couldn’t get shit outta his stupid ass but some racial training bullshit. Miss me with that, nigga, I don’t need racial training. I need coffee!”

Someone whose voice and ideas actually mean something, as opposed to Victoria whom we just kinda humor, tells us the idea of not mandating blacks go through a racial bias course is both racist and woke as hell, so he’s not quite sure how to feel about it. His name is Jamar Greene and he’s a 20-something who calls himself an activist on Twitter. He had #BLM in his bio so we automatically reached out.

“On one hand, if’s offensive that they’d exclude the black community in this way and push them away from this, but on the other hand, it’s forward thinking of them to acknowledge that blacks don’t need to do this kind of thing because they can’t be racist. I don’t know, I’m really struggling with this one.”

We would reach out to a Starbucks employee to get their thoughts, but turnover is so high we can’t pin one down for comment.

ATLANTA, GA — The city of Atlanta was rocked earlier this morning when Adam Cole, a 43-year-old white man, was brutally killed in his friend’s basement after allegedly referring to a black man in his group of peers as “his nigga” with a nigga pass that has been expired for several months.

Cole received his first pass from a middle school friend at the age of 12, according to his mother, Irene Cole, and had gone back to that same friend to get the pass renewed yearly.

“I always reminded him as a kid to get his pass renewed, but he’d never listen. He didn’t deserve to die, but I don’t know what he expected when being so careless. You know how they get. Those dangerous nig—”

She cut herself off to rummage through her purse to pull out her pass, which doesn’t expire until next fall, and she finished her statement with the n-word— with a hard r.

The man who killed Cole is 38-year-old Andre Allen, who told us that he feels bad he had to do it, but that there was no other way to resolve the issue.

“This shit ain’t a game, bruh. You know what I’m sayin’? You don’t have a pass, you keep that word out yo mouth, you feel me?”

Allen was arrested and immediately released after telling authorities that putting him in handcuffs and holding him triggers his PTSD (post-traumatic slave disorder).

All white readers are reminded to renew their pass and to present it to the nearest black person upon use of the n-word.

University of Minnesota students have this week had a really hard choice in front of them in the divestment referendum.

For those unacquainted, the “UMN Divest referendum” thing is where a group of anti-Semites or something hate Boeing or something, and the other side consists of the Jewish frat and people who hate Palestinian kids or something and the anti-Semites want the U of M to not support the kid-hating side and the kid-hating side thinks the anti-Semitic is being anti-Semitic. I dunno. I didn’t really research.

I think the important thing to remember in this time is that regardless of which ever way it goes, it’ll surely be the beginnings of a race war. Which is exciting!

Both sides absolutely losing it surely means something is going on. This can’t just be a vote to stop money from going to companies. If that was the case, I don’t think people would care. Right?

I mean, nobody actually cares about Palestine, do they? Or Israel? If anyone actually cared about anyone in the region, it would have all been sorted out decades ago. Both the sides in the region get off to war or something, which is totally fine; I personally love war myself. My point is that it’s cool that this is coming to the US now, starting with this vote.

Again, whichever way it goes in this absolutely meaningless vote, tons of people are gonna go insane. If “Vote No” wins, they’ll buy so many Snapchat filters that we’ll have to swipe for several minutes to get the normal ones. And if “UMNDivest” wins, all Jews on campus will be forced to go back to Israel or else face the wrath of people who actually don’t care about any of this but are trying to look woke by championing Palestine.

Either way, big things are happening.

Black+LGBT logo (COMBO)Today we are proud to announce “APR Voices,” a platform for different segments of America to voice their opinions and discuss what matters to them, but nobody else.

We are starting the project with two “Voices”: Black Voices and LGBT Voices. For many years, the struggles of these two groups have been hidden in our country, but with the advent of the internet, their battles are becoming mainstream.

Now, what you may be thinking is that we are creating these “Voices” to allow people from those communities to speak up about their issues and talk about what matters to them to people who perhaps don’t have that perspective. That’s not the case. We’re doing this because our numbers show that we’re losing the black and gay crowd, so we’re pandering to them by providing an echo chamber for their views where they think they’re being listened too by mass audiences, but they’re actually just talking to themselves.

But don’t let that put you off! We’re the good guys here! Just think to yourself, is CNN doing this? Thought so. This is definitely pandering, but pandering is better than ignoring.

Stay tuned for future Voices, such as: Female Voices, Illegal Immigrant Voices, Canadian Voices, Alt-Right Voices, and many, many more!



Dear APR,

I was flipping through radio channels and a Black Lives Matter event was being covered. The announcer was describing a specific activist in the crowd and referred to that person as a “person of color” and I just thought to myself that the phrase “person of color’ is definitely really racist, isn’t it? How is it any different from calling a black person a “colored person?” I hope you guys can shed some light on this.


Dave, 28

Thank you very much for that letter, Dave. First and foremost, we’d like to say that we love all people, regardless of how colored they are. All readers are important to us here at American Public Radio.

To answer your question, the term is not racist. When you see someone on the street, the first thing you notice about them is their skin color, correct? Say you have to be able to quickly describe what you’re seeing; how do you do that? If they’re white, the answer is obvious. You just say you saw a white person. Easy enough. What if they’re non-white? Asking them how they identify is much too personal and an educated guess is far worse, so you would call them a person of color. You make a good point that the term sounds anachronistic, but that’s because we made the mistake of making a new term using an old one as a base. The solution would be to go back to using the terms “colored person” or —for simplicity sake— “colored.”

You bring up a good point about why you believe the term is racist. It makes sense. But we ask you to ponder this question: How different are all of these races, really?

In our world, the biggest line of demarcation between people is whites on one end and everyone else. All other minor subsets of “colored people” are irrelevant today (much like subsets of white people in America: Dutch, Irish, German, Swedish, etc.) and it’s easier to bring them together as one group. In fact, Dave, it’s racist to presume that they have different experiences just purely based on their skin color, so why not just group them all together? It saves time and it’s the least intrusive way to label someone.

When you see a man in a hoodie approaching you at night and your instinct is to cross the street, you don’t care what kind of colored he is. You just care that he is colored at all, and you cross the street.

Need we remind you, getting it wrong also makes you look a fool! Office Intern Anna Holland just today told of a time when she ate crow after mislabeling a Northern Cuban with a Southeastern Cuban. Classic mistake, but imagine the situation if she skipped the embarrassment and offense by just calling them colored? It’s impossible to mix up two inconsequentially different ethnic groups if you refer to both by the same name.

Race is a tough issue and racism is even harder, but think about it this way, Dave. You can’t be racist if you are trying not to offend people. When you  minimize the potential miscategorization of someone’s race, you are showing that you care about the feelings of the feelings of those groups. And to show that you care, you’d call them colored.

To send your own letters to the editor, use the contact form on the about page or email us directly at