Duke announced the opening of a Lululemon shop at the University Store on August 21. Lululemon has a long-standing history of fatphobia and anti-Asian racism. This decision does not sit right with me.
Lululemon’s history of racism dates back to the company’s very inception; in a 2004 interview, founder Chip Wilson said he chose a name with three L’s in it because Japanese people struggle to pronounce that sound and “[i]t’s funny to watch them try to say it.”
I know no other brand whose name was crafted as an explicit, racially-toned joke at the expense of an entire ethnic group. In the nearly two decades since this information became public, Lululemon has not changed its name. A name is the most integral part of a brand’s identity, and I’m deeply uncomfortable with a brand whose identity was borne out of anti-Asian sentiment.
Wilson has also made fatphobic comments directed at his customer base. When Lululemon recalled some women’s yoga pants in 2013 after complaints that they were see-through, Wilson took it upon himself to announce that “some women’s bodies just don’t work for it” and that it’s an issue of “the rubbing through the thighs.”
When products don’t live up to consumer’s expectations, companies will typically rework their product to satisfy their customer base; for Lululemon, the problem is instead the size of women’s bodies. So before you buy leggings from the Duke x Lululemon collab, remember that unless you have a thigh gap, these clothes weren’t made for you.
Wilson released a book in which he wrote that he “isn’t necessarily opposed to child labor,” which he sees as “excellent training for life.” He also noted that Asian children are faced with the choice to work or starve: “I liked the working alternative.” Wilson added that his own children “have worked in the family business since the age of five, without pay.”
In response to criticism of his “not necessarily opposed” stance on child labor, Wilson and his employees fought back by dressing up as babies while working sewing machines. Wilson’s rationale: “Nobody could accuse us of child labor, because we agreed with it.” Problem solved.
This past January, Wilson did an interview with Forbes in which he lamented the “unhealthy,” “sickly” and “not inspirational” appearances of Lululemon models. He added that he believes “the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody…You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.” In the same interview, he expressed disdain for the “whole diversity and inclusion thing” at Lululemon; while it’s not clear whether this is about race or body type, his track record suggests it’s probably both.
Wilson has explicitly identified Lululemon’s target group as “Super Girls,” defined as a young woman with “an amazing career and spectacular health” and considerable disposable income. I suppose that’s in line with Duke’s well-documented preference for wealthy students. Duke enrolls more students from the top 1% than the entire bottom 60% combined. Duke ranks 2,140th in share of students in the bottom 20% of family income. It’s an issue President Price likes to talk about, but Duke has rarely made the tough decisions required to make the school more welcoming to kids outside the upper echelons of society.
Wilson resigned in 2013 but remains not only the largest individual shareholder, but also the third largest single shareholder including non-individuals. He holds a stake valued at over $2.6 billion. I am skeptical of Lululemon’s attempts at distancing themselves from their founder when he holds clear financial power over them. With such a high stake in the company, much of the money Lululemon gets from their Duke partnership will go toward making this billionaire richer. That is reason enough to either remove or boycott the store.
When evaluating this decision by the administration, I try not to attribute to maliciousness what could be attributed to incompetence. Duke could have been unaware of the laundry list of ethical issues tied to Lululemon. This would be an embarrassment as all this information is easily accessible and would constitute a remarkable failure by the administration in not doing basic due diligence before entering a financial partnership.
If Duke was aware of these glaring issues, however, I am mortified that a deeply ingrained culture of exclusion, misogyny and unethical labor practices is less important than profit margins. It is morally reprehensible that increased revenue at the University Store warrants welcoming this company onto campus in the face of such clear affronts to Duke’s values.
The obvious next step is to immediately break the deal that brought Lululemon to campus. If Duke wants to even pretend that they care about inclusion and equity, following through with the deal is a non-starter. I hope Duke will recognize the sunk costs from this mistake are their burden to bear, and a burden that a wealthy institution can certainly afford.
Unfortunately, I’ve learned to lower my expectations for institutions when it comes to doing the right thing. I will instead request the bare minimum: President Price should issue an explanation for why Duke decided to enter this contract. The students are entitled to know the thought process that led to such a flawed decision.
Additionally, Duke should solicit student input for future contracts, such as by putting together a selection of five possible options and polling students. We deserve space to provide input, not just criticisms of decisions we weren’t involved in.
For students, I propose an easy action plan: boycott the Lululemon store. A lot of us probably weren’t going to shop there anyways, ethics aside. We were fine with no Lululemon store last year. By making zero change to our spending habits, we can organize the simplest boycott ever. Collective action is the most practical tool at our disposal to push Duke to elevate the standards they use in making these decisions. And enacting change aside, I simply don’t want any of my money going to Chip Wilson.
I believe the student body values inclusivity and mutual respect. When a company like Lululemon enters our community, they do so in opposition to those values. We should expect companies brought in by administration to adhere to the same ethical standards to which administration holds its students. That’s the critical point: Duke is a school, but beyond that Duke is a community, and communities are built on shared values that we all commit to upholding. Today, Duke has failed that commitment. Tomorrow must be different.
Felix Jones is a Trinity senior.
Editor's note: The previous version of this article stated that Duke enrolls about half as many Pell Grant recipients as comparable elite schools. The article is updated to reflect the increase in the share of Class of 2028 students who are Pell Grant recipients. The Chronicle regrets the error.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.