From Urban Outfitters to Forever 21, retailers are dying to make an impact, leaving their mark on the industry, and having consumers basically do their branding for them. Now more than ever this trend of “hipster-ism” is becoming extremely prominent. How does one retailer out of all these stores selling similar products stand out? Urban Outfitters has made it their goal to seem eclectic, vintage, and edgy, especially with their cool graphic tees and baggy vintage sweaters. As of lately, Urban is taking these statement-making pieces and making their mark– as a company with a very low standard of ethics, and a very high desire for monetary gain. The company is making news in all the wrong kind of ways, causing controversy instead of just creating stylish garmets anyone could be proud to sport.
So what exactly is the problem? For the last few years, Urban has been pushing out extremely ignorant and controversial apparel to no end. Maybe you remember the “Eat Less” t-shirt, insinuating all women should stop eating to be that ideal image, or maybe you can recall the gay marriage line they so swiftly pulled from the shelves the second they began to lose clientele, or perhaps more prominently you have paid attention to their anti-Semitic actions through countless designs, a few being a yellow t-shirt with a Jewish star, or the t-shirt displaying the phrase “Everyone Loves a Jewish Girl,” with a girl surrounded by money. Regardless of what you were aware of before this point in time, the most recent insensitive and malicious move on the company’s part was the sale of a “Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt”.
Earlier this month, a Buzzfeed article was released displaying outrage after the sale of a seemingly faux blood- spattered Kent State Sweatshirt, with rips and tears similar to that of bullet holes. Not many people in our generation would recognize this reference to the 1970’s Kent State shooting, but this ridiculously insensitive and disturbing article of clothing brought back much heartache for those present at that time.
1970 was a time of war, and a time of protest. The Vietnam War was in our midst, and on the Kent State campus students decided to take a stand. Voicing their protest against the war led ultimately to the death of four unarmed students and many more injuries by the Ohio National Guard. As articulated by a reporter at the time for the New York Times, this is what occurred on May 4, 1970:
“As the guardsmen, moving up the hill in single file, reached the crest, they suddenly turned, forming a skirmish line and opening fire.
The crackle of the rifle volley cut the suddenly still air. It appeared to go on, as a solid volley, for perhaps a full minute or a little longer.
Some of the students dived to the ground, crawling on the grass in terror. Others stood shocked or half crouched, apparently believing the troops were firing into the air. Some of the rifle barrels were pointed upward.
Near the top of the hill at the corner of Taylor Hall, a student crumpled over, spun sideways and fell to the ground, shot in the head.
When the firing stopped, a slim girl, wearing a cowboy shirt and faded jeans, was lying face down on the road at the edge of the parking lot, blood pouring out onto the macadam, about 10 feet from this reporter.”
Why would a company take such a horrible situation and years later, work to make a profit off of it? Companies like Urban Outfitters are antagonists, they create the trends and feelings of a generation; it is their duty to represent only the best of culture, not ignorance.
Not only were many Urban Outfitter customers appalled, but Kent State University issued their own statement not long after the sweatshirt was revealed in the Buzzfeed article. Ultimately, the University voiced a very similar and unanimous opinion- it is unethical for a company to use someone’s, or many people’s, pain for publicity and profit. Trivializing this event, and even other’s cultures, values, and experiences all simply for money’s sake is where businesses fail.
Businesses as a whole have a responsibility to be socially responsible, and to better the society in which they function. Shirts and “vintage” articles of clothing that evoke only pain and horrendous emotions should not be even brought to the drawing board, never-the-less approved and produced. In what world is that ever okay? Apparently, Urban Outfitters has all of their focus on what things like this can do for their popularity and sales. One can only hope that enormous issues like this can be brought to light by individuals, and that collectively as a whole we can turn something negative into something positive; we can reprimand companies from using pain for personal financial gains and by doing so, we can prevent companies from having this kind of arrogance in the future.