Walking in the Valley A bi-weekly column, featuring one Christian's (a)musings on life's journey by Barbara Dahlgren

Rachael Ray’s Fashionable Offense Column for the weeks of June 1-15, 2008

archives |

printer-friendly version

The notorious Rachael Ray/Dunkin’ Donuts fashion faux pas has raised quite a stir. When Rachael Ray, cooking magnate and guru, donned a black and white paisley scarf provided by her stylist for an on-line ad for Dunkin’ Donuts Coffee, she had no idea she would open a coffee can of controversy.

Her scarf resembled a keffiyeh, the traditional scarf of Arab men, worn by some jihad and Muslim terrorists. A few bloggers like Atlas Shrugs’ Pam Geller, Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs (the anti-idiotarian headquarters – anti-idiotarian being debatable) were appalled and started a scathing campaign against Dunkin’ Donuts. How could this clueless company allow their representative to wear such offensive clothing? Dunkin’ Donuts tried to appease everyone with “Please understand that we do not buy items to provoke controversy or to intentionally offend,” and “absolutely no symbolism was intended,” but to no avail. Boycotts were discussed.

So, caving into pressure from the blogging community, Dunkin’ Donuts pulled the commercial and issued this statement: “ Thank you for expressing your concern about the Dunkin' Donuts advertisement with Rachael Ray. In the ad that you reference, Rachael is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design that was purchased at a U.S. retail store. It was selected by the stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we will no longer use the commercial.”

Those bloggers were pleased; others were not, calling the decision everything from “idiotic” to “nuts.” The Boston Globe said, “Does Dunkin’ Donuts really think its customers could mistake Rachael Ray for a terrorist sympathizer?” Lorraine Ali’s Newsweek Commentary entitled “Not So Sweet: Why Dunkin’ Donuts shouldn’t have caved in the controversy over Rachael Ray’s ‘kaffiyeh’ scarf” says, “Beware of Dunkin’s Blueberry Cake Donut. At 290 calories with 16 grams of fat, it’s more deadly than a paisley scarf in spring.” And now other groups want to boycott Dunkin’ Donuts for halting the ad.

It’s not that these people are great Rachael Ray or Dunkin’ Donuts fans. They just feel if you are going to make an issue over something, it should be more substantial than a scarf worn by millions as a fashion accessory. Middle Eastern men, celebrities, students, tourists, U.S. troops and even John McCain’s daughter have been seen and photographed wearing keffiyeh’s for years. Amahl Bishara, anthropology lecturer at the University of Chicago who specializes in media matters relating to the Middle East, said “Kaffiyehs are worn every day on the street by Palestinians and other people in the Middle East — by people going to work, going to school, taking care of their families, and just trying to keep warm.”

The bigger problem may be how a few people can propose to speak for the many and be totally off base, yet be so effective – in this case, bringing a big corporation to its knees – over a scarf.

Dunkin’ Donuts has a reputation for wanting to do the right thing by today’s standards. In a controversial move, they supported immigration enforcement by not hiring illegal immigrants and exposing those with false Social Security numbers. Their motive in pulling the Ray ad was not to offend anyone, but they forgot two things: A few complaints do not represent the majority and it is impossible to live in a world without offending anyone. As humorist Fran Lebowitz said, “Being offended is a natural consequence to leaving one's house” or in this case – putting on a fringed scarf.

Some think of offenses as being actions done to deliberately cause displeasure, anger, or resentment. But in our politically correct society, it is not enough that the motive is not to hurt or stir up trouble. Some people won’t be satisfied until everyone feels the same way they do. When Dunkin’ Donuts said their intent was not to provoke controversy or intentionally offend, it was not enough.

On a more personal level, what if your neighbor inadvertently offends you? Will an apology like, “Hey, I’m really sorry about that. I had no idea that would hurt your feelings.” be enough? Or will we not be satisfied until they sell all their possessions, give us their car, and move to another state?

Be sure to visit this page often to read the next edition of Walking in the Valley. You can write to the author at bdahlgren@wcgsouthbay.org.