Texaco Boycott Is Overkill

Before Texaco announced its settlement Friday of the lawsuit brought by black employees, CEO Peter I. Bijur had agreed that the company was guilty at least of racial insensitivity if not blatant discrimination against African Americans. Within days after the press reported Texaco officials purportedly bad-mouthing blacks on a tape, Bijur did something that far too many corporate and government officials don’t do when accused of wrongdoing. He didn’t lie, deny, stonewall, cover up or make phony promises to investigate. He punished four of the men involved, ordered a probe of the charges of racial bias and obstruction and initiated an overhaul of the company’s diversity programs.

Bijur further showed that he was serious by meeting with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume.

But this wasn’t enough for many African Americans. Moments after meeting with Bijur, Jackson, with much media fanfare, told blacks to boycott Texaco--”drive past the star”--and demanded that shareholders divest themselves of Texaco stock. Even after the settlement of the suit was announced, Jackson said the call for a boycott still stood, “to keep the pressure on.”

This is and was ridiculous. From the start, the whole thing smacked of media grandstanding.

Even if Bijur did act solely to affect public opinion and avoid costly litigation, he still deserves credit for demonstrating corporate responsibility rather than corporate evasion. His actions are certainly welcome in an era when much of the public perceives corporations as greedy, manipulative, dishonest and always ready to thrash people and the environment in their ruthless pursuit of profit.

Even more, if the blacks who called for a boycott had really wanted to assault corporate racism, why not go after Avis? The allegations of discrimination against the car rental company are far more damaging. Avis officials are accused of taking no action against a franchise holder in North and South Carolina charged with employment discrimination and refusing to rent cars to blacks. Why no national protest actions against the many companies that have had to be forced by lawsuits to mend their ways regarding racial and sexual discrimination? These cases adversely impacted more employees and caused as much economic pain as the Texaco case.

Also, I ask, who will be hurt the most by the boycott? Most Texaco stations are independent franchises owned by small business operators who often work long hours and depend on the station for their livelihood. The threats to shut them down didn’t depress stock prices or put a crimp in the pockets of Texaco corporate officials. Protesters at a West Los Angeles station looked particularly ridiculous on newscasts lecturing the station’s lease operator, a Cambodian immigrant, on the “racist evils” of Texaco.

Mfume, to his credit, made no media rush to judgment, and was able to get Bijur to agree to report back to the NAACP in 30 days with a concrete plan to hire and promote more blacks, provide seed money for black start-up companies, increase the number of contracts for minority-owned companies, and donate more to black charities. This proved that quiet negotiation with a specific program and goals will gain more for blacks than cheap media stunts.

None of this is said to apologize for the company that has fewer black corporate officials and managers than its major competitors and has reduced the number of black employees. Texaco rightly deserves the slams it is getting.

Yet in the crunch, Texaco has done the right thing in taking steps to confront its own institutional racism. To punish it for this only encourages corporate America to do even less.