Editorial: Starbucks cup should not ignite fiery, red outrage

We’ve passed the torch of ideological outrage, and Starbucks is its latest bearer.

This year’s release of Starbucks’ holiday-themed cup on Tuesday, Nov. 3, led to holy outcry in the following days when bewildered Christians couldn’t find the cheer on their coffee-filled canvases.

There were no snowflakes, reindeer or other commercialized Christmas symbols adorning the cup to remind them of the holidays. There was just the Starbucks logo stamped on a warm, red background — obviously created using blood spilt during the liberals’ “War on Christmas.”

But despite Starbucks’ attempt to spread secular cheer, the iconic cup is no longer a symbol of the holidays — but one of the broader cultural movement against opposing viewpoints. Is the red cup going to be our next trigger warning icon?

Along with the Starbucks controversy, students at Yale have surrounded Nicholas and Erika Christakis, Master and Associate Master of Silliman College —  one of Yale’s residential houses —  with anger over an email Erika Christakis sent to students. Students demanded their resignations and refused to acknowledge the Christakis’ viewpoint when it became clear they would not apologize for holding a differing perspective.

Erika Christakis’ email followed one sent by Yale College Dean Burgwell Howard to students asking them to be culturally sensitive to the implications of their Halloween costumes. When students complained that the advice infringed on their freedom of speech and expression, Erika Christakis sent the email questioning the consequences of the university exercising control over students. Students felt Erika Christakis’ email was racially insensitive and decried the idea that a university should be an “intellectual space” over a “safe space.”

The alternative to outcry — accepting opposing viewpoints without taking personal offense — is too much of an ideological beating for some to handle. For those whose eyes glaze under the red glare of the Starbucks cup — it’s too much to even view.

But it shouldn’t be.

In some cases, offense is absolutely warranted, and protests voice these concerns. In other situations, however, protest simply implies that someone, or something, failed to shelter an individual from opposing ideological impositions — a responsibility most institutions should not have to bear.

Starbucks unveiled its new ombre cups — sans design — after watching customers write on them for years.

In a not-so-logical train of thought, Joshua Feuerstein, Internet and social media personality and a self-described evangelist, wrote “Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” on his Facebook page on Thursday.

Starbucks, of course, was not trying to kill Christmas. In fact, it was trying to broaden the holiday cheer by allowing its characteristic cups to be a blank slate upon which others could inscribe their personal associations with the holidays.

In response to the outrage, Starbucks released a statement.

“In the past, we have told stories with our holiday cups designs,” Jeffrey Fields, Starbucks vice president of design and content, said. “This year we wanted to usher in the holidays with a purity of design that welcomes all of our stories.”

That Starbucks feels obligated to explain design choices for their business out of societal obligation is ridiculous.

Customers can take offense with a number of issues — the working conditions of coffee bean farmers or the pretty penny you dole out for a cup of Starbucks coffee, for example — but the lack of design on a cardboard cup should not be a point of national outrage.

Protest against those actually infringing on your rights — not against those defying your ideology.

Save your outrage for the serious issues. For everything else, a blank, red Starbucks cup makes the perfect canvas for your feelings.